Talk:Female infanticide in India

June 1986

User:OccultZone, hi. this edit was switched back to 1985 but the source here gives "June 1986" for the India Today Born to Die cover story. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: Article was DYK, and today I saw that you changed the year. Thanks for keeping it calm, I have self-reverted. OccultZone (Talk) 02:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, there seem to be three sources in Google Books citing this article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert, why

Please stop removing the image, it is for illustrative purposes and is fine. Also the change of dates (unexplained) and the use of primary sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." The image stays. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

This article is not neutral. It summarizes sources that highlight and present "high estimates" of female infanticide, but does not summarize sources that provide alternate "lower estimates" or question the high estimates. A neutral presentation would present all sides, high and low. There is plenty of reliable scholarly sources for the different sides. SamanthaBooth (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

And, bollocks. Thanks for coming. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

You reverted my edit, asking for a source! I already provided it: Christophe Z Guilmoto, Sex imbalances at birth Trends, consequences and policy implications, United Nations Population Fund, Hanoi (October 2011), ISBN 978-974-680-338-0, p. 49. Why did you remove it here? SamanthaBooth (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

For further explanation of neutrality issues in this article, see here. SamanthaBooth (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This article is highly biased and racist. I shall be editing it suitably.ShoeMacneil (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I also see that this is a GA nominee. This article sucks and is undeserving of GA status. ShoeMacneil (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How is the article racist? And it is most certainly deserving of GA status. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

wierd question for a new bie seems profound understanding of what is a GA status for guy who joined today! , hopefully is not a sock of somebody Shrikanthv (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This is outrageous and WP:UNCIVIL. Perhaps you should put your suggestions to User:Darkness_Shines, a self admitted WP:SOCK, who is indefinitely TOPIC BANNED from editing India related articles, broadly construed. Needless to say I am reverting all of your unconstructive edits. ShoeMacneil (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Image disputed

19th-century illustration of "infanticide on the Ganges"

I have blocked the above new account ShoeMacneil (talk · contribs) as an aggressive edit-warring-only account who was evidently here in pursuance of some preexisting grudge, and therefore almost certainly a sock of some sorts. However, I have found two issues in the material he tried to remove that really do present a problem. One is the material I removed again here [1], because the wording was unduly presenting what is clearly an interpretative authorial opinion expressed by the source as if it was objective encyclopedic fact. The other is the image File:Infanticide-ganges.jpg. The problem here is that we don't have a reliable source saying what exactly this image was meant to show, while the available evidence suggests it is actually meant to show a very specific practice of infanticide that was not gender-specific against girls, distinct from the larger issue of female infanticide, and as such isn't illustrating what this section is about.

From the source website [2], we unfortunately don't know where exactly the image is ultimately from, but we know it's from a series of 19th-century illustrations about the life of William Carey, a Christian missionary around 1800. Carey was indeed known to have been involved with a purported pattern of infanticide on the Ganges, which he tried to eradicate [3][4]. However, what Carey described [5] was not the type of socially motivated female infanticide that this article is about, but a religiously motivated pattern of human sacrifice, where parents killed children – of either sex – in fulfillment of a religious vow [6][7]. While this purported practice has sometimes been discussed in the same context as that of specifically female infanticide, careful discussions – both contemporary and modern – clearly distinguish the two [8].

So, unless a source is brought forward that says the author of the illustration meant to specifically illustrate the killing of girls, we must assume the image isn't showing what this paragraph is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE "Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information. Consequently, images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images." And stop following me around. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

But it doesn't look like what it's meant to illustrate here. The image is meant to illustrate a different pattern of infanticide, performed as a ritual, publicly and out in the open; female infanticide of the type discussed in this article, according to the sources, was and is practiced secretly and at home. You can't seriously mean you read that guideline as allowing you to take an illustration of one historical practice and pretend it's an illustration of a different one? That just beggars belief.
Also, stop your disruptive tactics of reacting to everything you don't like with immediate blanket reverts, not even paying attention on what you're reverting. You reverted (a) three distinct changes by two different people, at least one of which was completely uncontroversial, (b) without even waiting for the explanation on talk I had said I'd give, and (c) without any explanation of the other parts of your reverts. This is exactly your old pattern of aggressive disruptive editing; if you continue like this I see you re-banned quite soon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The image shows infanticide, there is nothing wrong with it, and you need to stop hounding me Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)