Talk:Breast tax

Dubious journals

@Pharaoh of the Wizards: Thank you for looking to cite reliable scholarly sources for this article. Unfortunately, while the two sources are certainly journals, they are not reliable ones. They are pay-to-publish open access journals that do no peer reviews or fact checking and in this case, calling them predatory open access journals is doing them a favour. The first journal you've cited, "International Journal of Innovative Research and Advanced Studies" states on their website, The journal aims to cover the latest outstanding development. We welcome all the intricate individuals for the development. Join us to ride beyond stars. From the sidebar, The prime purpose of us is to say hello and provide assistance to aspirants viz. research scholars,professors, big achievers to metamorphose their revived inventive works into forms like case studies, meta-analysis, empirical studies and theoretical articles and light up the potential pages accompanying their unique ideas and renewed proportions to figure the journal equivalent to the sheer research arenas. This is not the kind of gibberish you would see on the website of a reliable journal. The second cited source, "INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL RESEARCH CULTURE SOCIETY" appears to be far worse. Both of them feature in this fork of the Beall list of predatory journals.

If you are interested in expanding this article, please consider looking up A. Jan Qaisar, "The Breast Cloth Controversy", The Indian Economic and Social History Review, Vol V, No 2 June 1968, pp 174-180. which, based on its title, appears to directly cover the topic. It has been cited in this paper (which itself doesn't offer much of value).—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 15:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: What is so interesting about taking unwarranted content forking as gospel? The POVFORKING of other subjects to this article was done very very recently contrary to discussions on this talk page. This page should be better merged to Channar revolt. See this version from July 2019 before this article became a POVFORK in November 2019. Are you seriously acting this ignorant? Wareon (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're trying to provoke a reaction by calling me names, you're not going to get anywhere, but I'd advise you to read WP:NPA. The fact is that the AfD you initiated for this article was closed "keep", and you now seem to be attempting an end-run around that result by just removing the content you don't like. Consensus is very explicitly against you here. If you're actually interested in improving the content, let's discuss how to improve the sourcing, and how to trim this so this page acts as an overview to the linked articles. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I still don't see the reason that why you are still taking unwarranted content forking as gospel?. The article must rely only on WP:HISTRS not the news sources for starters. But that alone will lead to stubification of the article. Wareon (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

No one is deleting the article. Only removing the misleading content forking which is repetitive and makes the subject look bigger than what it is. Can you find any consensus for the forking? Azuredivay (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I've explained to you once already today, HISTRS is an essay. Scholarly sources are preferable when the cover the same content, but they don't always do so. (Post-EC) Azuredivay, that's a meaningless question. Consensus was reached at AfD to keep this page, and the argument that it was a content fork was explicitly rejected. Using the same argument to remove most of the page is thoroughly inappropriate. I'm not going to edit-war over it, though. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

AfD cannot be considered as evidence for keeping the content in dispute. Since the subject is closely related to Channar revolt, why it should not be covered there instead? Azuredivay (talk) 18:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have just reverted drive-by restoration of POV content against the years old discussion on this talk page by Drat8sub. Wareon (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please tell me, where is the "years old discussion" establishing consensus against that content? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wareon You are talking about POV, let me tell you something what POV is, adding misleading edit summary while restoring edits which was previously being reverted. That is what called a POV. I don't see a concensus of what you are saying, but a pure concensus of keeping the materials can be seen here. Drat8sub (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see if are understanding what this discussion is all about so you need to refrain from reverting and listen instead. Where is the consensus for content forking from other articles to here? I don't see any discussion for content forking from other articles but demands to use only those reliable sources that particularly deals with history. We dont have to make this article look big by depending on content forking especially when the subject has remained a stub for years. There is still more cleanup needed but your restoration without understanding this discussion would only make it hard. Also ping Utcursch who did a clean-up back in 2018. Azuredivay (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Deleting article

These resources doesn't look reliable. should the article be marked for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:242:4002:6a5d:a0b0:befd:b566:b8d3 (talk • contribs) Agreed. It's gibberish - https://rarebooksocietyofindia.org/book_archive/196174216674_10152112262136675.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D08A:7EC6:F414:C38F:FD74:220D (talk) 10:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Athomas88's edits

@Athomas88: I'm temporarily undoing your edits, because they are written in a somewhat non-neutral tone (e.g. "inhumane"), and features contradictory statements (e.g. the lead says that the women were expected to pay a tax for simply having breasts, while the second para states that they were expected to pay a tax only if they covered their breasts. I will go through the sources, and see what is actually supported. Also, the article has WP:CITATIONOVERKILL problem. utcursch | talk 15:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Restored after cleanup: Removed incomplete citations; outdated / unreliable sources, removed synthesis / unsourced, added quotes, etc. utcursch | talk 16:12, 12 September 2018 (UTC)