Talk:Sati (practice)

RfC on views of Mughals and Sir Charles Napier on Sati

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The issue here is the following:

1. Whether the views on sati of Sir Charles Napier should be included in the article on Sati. (see history of article page for the deleted material)
2. Whether the views on sati of the Mughal Emperor Akbar should be included in the article on Sati.(see history of article page for the deleted material)
3. Whether the article is accurately reflecting the content of the Banerjee book in the 'Mughal Empire' section, or whether the article is containing edits which are not supported by the Banerjee book (see pages 81-2 for the relevant material on Sati).
4. (related to point 3) Whether the alleged inaccuracies and distortions in the 'Mughal Empire' section tend to portray the Mughals in a poor light in a way that is not supported by the source material (the Banerjee book).
5. Whether the article is mixing up Jauhar with Sati in the "Mughal Empire" section in an unacceptable way. (This article is about Sati; there is a different WP article about Jauhar).

Soham321 (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Procedural comments

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

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

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

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

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

Additional sources

• Margaret Cormack (2002), Sacrificing the Self: Perspectives on Martyrdom and Religion, Oxford University Press

1. Charles Napier

The following quote was removed by MSW:

"There is a well known story about sati involving Sir Charles Napier, the nineteenth century British commander-in-chief in India. When Napier was told by locals in India that sati was a "cultural custom" that deserved to be respected by British authorities, his response, characterized as "impeccably multicultural" by Mark Steyn, was:

Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.}}"

References

According to Soham321, this quote should be included in the article on Sati. From Talk:Sati (practice)#Sati during the Mughal era and Charles Napier:

past discussion

On Charles Napier, it is an anecdotal primary source, your addition was WP:Quotefarm-ing and WP:Soap-like. There are zillion such quotes, we need to ask if the quote implies a generalization from a specific case, and if it and its context adds anything meaningful and useful to this article. It doesn't, so I removed the Napier quote you added. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC) The Charles Napier quote was not from a primary source as you wrongly claim, i had given three references for it which were all secondary sources. It is a widely known quote and as such I would favor including it in the article at least as a footnote. Soham321 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC) @Soham321: On Napier, you cited two "The One and Only" oped blogs such as "Is ISIS evil? oped in National Review. Such blogs are not an appropriate WP:RS for this topic, a subject that has attracted much peer reviewed scholarship. The Napier quote is primary, and Michael Shermer book makes a passing mention, Shermer source is neither a scholarly cross examination of Napier, nor is it a study of sati.Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Additional Comment: Napier quote does not add anything significant to this article, and adding just Napier quote raises NPOV issues. For NPOV, we will need to include views that oppose Napier, which means adding quotes from many Europeans who admired sati as "burning proof of fidelity or pure love by virtuous Indian women". For example, see the writings on sati of William Methwold, William Hawkins, Jean Mocquet, Mads Rasmussen, Pietro della Valle, Francisco Pelsaert, etc etc. This article will become a quote farm, if we do so. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Sir Charles Napier was the Commander-in-chief in British India. As such he was more prominent than any of the people Sarah Welch mentions with respect to the British approach towards Sati. Also, this is a widely reported quote. The WP biography Sir Charles Napier mentions that the first time this quote was reported was in a book written by Sir Charles's brother. The reference given to the book of Sir Charles's brother gives the date as 2011 meaning the book is still being currently printed. That book becomes another source for the quote. Here are a few more sources for the quote (do a control-F on Napier): Link1, Link 2 and Link 3. Besides not being nowhere near as prominent as Napier the people mentioned by Sarah are not known for having made any comment on Sati. If Sarah has any evidence of them making any comment on sati let her produce this evidence. We can then consider incorporating their views as well in the main article depending on the prominence of the individual and the importance of what he said.Soham321 (talk) 15:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Napier served a few years in that capacity, in the northwest Sindh and nearby regions to end the Sikh Empire. That is a tiny fraction of the long colonial/European presence in Indian subcontinent. This source states it was a rare practice when Napier made that comment in Sindh, making is undue for another reason. For quotes by other Europeans on sati, who they were, read the Pompa Banerjee source more. See pages 90-91 and 114-136, for example, for a compilation and analysis of quotes/comments by historically significant "Europeans praising, admiring sati" there, between 17th and 19th century. You allege Napier quote is "widely reported", then provide dailyo.in type websites, with articles not on sati, but some unrelated op-ed!! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment on "For NPOV, we will need to include views that oppose Napier". That might be acceptable for BBC-style "impartiality", but it is a misunderstanding of npov on Wikipedia. Npov here is to accurately summarize what reliable sources say, without giving undue weight to minor viewpoints. It is not an obligation for every viewpoint to be presented with an opposing viewpoint. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tiptoethrutheminefield: Indeed. In this case, these opposing quotes and views are in reliable secondary sources and they are as "due or undue" as Napier. I have already provided one reliable source with page numbers above. It reviews this topic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose replacement - It is just political rhetoric of no encyclopaedic value. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, +1 @Kautilya3. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, +1 @Kautilya3. With reluctance, because I like the quote. However, while it belongs on Napier's page as a well known incident in his life, it's importance to the history of sati is debatable. Even Napier's brother didn't seem to find sati a significant issue for Sir Charles, since this single paragraph is the only mention it gets in a 2 volume account of his time in Scinde. The quote gets a lot of contemporary play because it is often used by people arguing in support of British colonialism or against so called multiculturalism. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Kautilya3. Also reluctantly, because it's quite funny. But it adds nothing, may be attributed by his brother and although he was important politically, there is no reason to think this was in any way an 'official' response, nor a typical English one. If he actively banned/discouraged sati as a practice, that would be significant and includable, but (possibly?) making a joke isn't. Pincrete (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Mughal Empire

2. Akbar

Soham 321 wants to know "Whether the views on sati of the Mughal Emperor Akbar should be included in the article on Sati." This includes two pieces of information c.q. text. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote in note

To the following text:

"According to Annemarie Schimmel, the Mughal Emperor Akbar was averse to the practice of Sati; however, he expressed his admiration for "widows who wished to be cremated with their deceased husbands"."

Soham321 added the following note:

"It is an ancient custom in Hindustan for a woman to burn herself however unwilling she may be, on her husband's death and to give her priceless life with a cheerful countenance conceiving it to be a means of her husband's salvation. It is a strange commentary on the magnanimity of men that they should seek their deliverance through the self-sacrifice of their wives."

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: At least, the quotes (plural) should be clearly attributed to Akbar. But then, still, the quote seems to contradict the info from Schimmel. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: There is no contradiction. Akbar admired the loyalty and devotion of women who committed sati. Nevertheless he was against the practice and had banned forcible sati. (His efforts to ban voluntary sati failed after it was met by resistance with hindus.) Akbar also was contemptuous of hindu men who endorsed sati. This portion, about the Mughal approach towards sati, could actually be expanded with the help of scholarly books on mughal history.Soham321 (talk) 15:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose replacement - The proposed text is trying to pass off Ain-i-Akbari as a WP:HISTRS, which it is not. I suggest the original version can be extended by adding "and condemned the pusillanimity of men that allowed it". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

extended discussion

Comment My suggestion is that it is very appropriate to give Akbar's quote on Sati in a section titled 'Mughal Empire' in a page titled 'Sati (practice)' because Akbar has been widely considered to be the greatest Mughal King India has known. Mainstream historians consider him to be among the greatest kings India has known. Also, there is a direct incident of Akbar personally stopping an incident of forcible sati all by himself (without any of his guards) which is widely reported in books on mughal history. In my opinion the source for this quote can be secondary sources with the Ain-i-Akbari being used as an additional reference in conjunction. Would you agree to include the quote of Akbar in the main article providing i provide secondary sources for this quote? I have no objection to placing this quote as a footnote in the main article. Soham321 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC) All these historical facts you mention merit inclusion in the article, provided they are reliably sourced, but not the quote. Ain-i-Akbar is not WP:HISTRS, it is a WP:PRIMARY source, which should not be interpreted by us. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC) Kautilya3, so would you agree to include these edits in the main article if i give secondary sources to support them? And if yes, should this material go in the main article or should it be present in a footnote? Soham321 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "these edits" and "this material". I haven't seen any. Well-sourced material can always be included subject to WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC) By "these edits" and "this material" i was referring to your previous comment "All these historical facts you mention merit inclusion in the article, provided they are reliably sourced, but not the quote." You object to the quote because i used a primary reference( a valid objection); my point is would you continue objecting to the inclusion of the quote if i used secondary reference(s) for the quote?Soham321 (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC) with respect to your words "All these historical facts you mention merit inclusion in the article, provided they are reliably sourced", I am happy to note that we seem to have reached some consensus.Soham321 (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC) We can't possibly reach a "consensus" about edits that are yet to be made! Please make the edits and then we can discuss them. But the guidance I am giving you is a valid one. If there are historical facts and historical views presented and analysed by reliable sources, they can and should always be included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC) The edits have not been formally made but i gave an outline of the edits in my earlier post. For instance when i mentioned "Also, there is a direct incident of Akbar personally stopping an incident of forcible sati all by himself (without any of his guards) which is widely reported in books on mughal history." That is why you commented "All these historical facts you mention merit inclusion in the article, provided they are reliably sourced." I'll make the edits formally in my user page as and when i am able to and will ping you for feedback. Soham321 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose, +1 @Kautilya3. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Removal of info

Soham321 removed the following info:

"He was averse to abuse, and in 1582, Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in Sati."

by

"In 1582, Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in Sati."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose replacement - The original text sounds more complete to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, +1 @Kautilya3. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

3. Banerjee

Soham 321 wants the following text:

"In Mughal court style paintings included in these memoirs, states Banerjee, the practice of Sati was depicted by the artists. (Banerjee 2016, p.82)"

to replace:

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

c.q.:

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

References

Soham321 wants to know "Whether the article is accurately reflecting the content of the Banerjee book in the 'Mughal Empire' section, or whether the article is containing edits which are not supported by the Banerjee book." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The painting

• Feme qui se brule from Histoire de l'Inde depuis Tamerlank jusquà Orangzeb par Manucci (Paris, 1722) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Banerji's commentary

pp.80-82: The illustration in figure 2.1 is noticeably different from other portraits in the genre; it is precisely mapped and devoid of the emotional turmoil of many other portrayals of sati discussed in this book. If the picture tells a story, it would have to be a story about the Mughal inderdiction of sati--the Mughal emperors were Muslim and widowburning was prohibited in regions under Mughal control. If the image were telling such a story, then one would have to read it this way: The sati, placed at the center, looking away from the brahmins (arranged along the right margin) appeals to the Mughal king and his courtiers (center of the left margin) for intervention. The brahmins and the Mughals stand as mirrored oppositions, the brahmins standing with their right arms upraised and the Mughals with their left arms similarly extended. Both sides, the picture's narrative appears to suggest, contest for the widow, the brahmins to burn and the Mughals to save her. Yet, if such a narrative even exists within this portrait, it appears only after sustained scrutiny and with specific knowledge of the cultural functions involved.... The overwhelming impression of the illustration would be quite contrary to the narrative I have suggested. Except for the four easily missed brahmins at the right margin, the spectators all appear to be Mughal or Muslim. Although the appearance of unveiled women in public among the male specators probably suggest Hindu rather than Islamic women, nothing in the women's costumes suggests Hindu apparel; even a figure with a dot on its forehead at the top right appears less Hindu than generic and androgynous. The sati at the center is dressed in the fashion of a court dancer, not a Hindu widow of the period. The bearded masculine figures attired int he headdresses and costumes of Mughal courtiers reinforce the dominant impression of the image.... To an audience not in tune with either the conventions of Mughal painting or the cultural differences between Hindus and Muslims, the painting would probably present itself as a generic image of the "Indian" custom of sati. Like Hamilton's pantheon of "Hindu" gods, this image would then also erase all cultural and regional differences to construct a composite, homogenized portrait of sati as the generic "Indian" woman who burned for the love of her husband.

• Comment: I do not understand the issue here. Everything is directly supported, except the word "led". Is it the contested verb? It just implies "in charge, be in commanding, dominant position". Is that verb is all there is to this particular RfC? If so, then let us choose a different one. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply: See this for why there is a problem. Soham321 (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• From the previous discussion:

previous discussion

According to my reading of the book there is nothing to suggest that the hindu widow shown in any of the paintings is being "led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers". The book is saying that the paintings depict muslims and brahmins with the muslims wanting to save the life of the woman wanting to commit sati and the brahmins intent on their desire that she burn. Let me quote from the book (page 82, see first line): Both sides, the picture's narrative appears to suggest, contest for the widow, the brahmins to burn and the Mughals to save her. On Banerjee source about the painting, you seem to be misreading it (see pages 80-82). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC) On the Banerjee source, it is you who is misreading it. I even gave a direct quote from the book to show that you are misreading the book. Soham321 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC) Ms Sarah Welch has now made another change to (one of) the disputed section(s) after the discussion above. Note that she freely reverts me, and then freely keeps making whatever changes she wants to the disputed section. After her recent modification, the disputed section reads: In Mughal court style paintings included in these memoirs, states Banerjee, the practice of Sati was depicted by the artists. In the unrealistic paintings that erased all cultural and regional differences, the Sati is not dressed like a Hindu widow but as a court dancer, and the overwhelming impression is one where "the spectators all appear to be Mughal or Muslim", the few Brahmins easy to miss, the costumes and dresses of those shown in the painting suggest she being led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers. This is cherry picking of the source material to portray the mughals in a poor light. It ignores completely what the book says about the paintings portraying mughals to be wanting to save the widow: "Both sides, the picture's narrative appears to suggest, contest for the widow, the brahmins to burn and the Mughals to save her." There is only one reference to "bearded men" in the page being referred to in the book: "The bearded masculine figures attired in the headdresses and costumes of Mughal courtiers reinforce the dominant impression of the image." So where is the reference in the book to the words being used in the article: "the costumes and dresses of those shown in the painting suggest she being led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers"? The answer is: it is not there. Sarah Welch is misreading the book, and making edits in the article which are not supported by the referenced source material. Soham321 (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC) @Soham321: you are repeating your past behavior. Falsely alleging "The answer is: it is not there" and "not supported by the referenced source material". We can't WP:Copyvio. The summary is supported on pages 81-82 of the source. See "the overwhelming impression" discussion on page 82. On your 'Mughals to save her' [court dancer near the pyre] part, you may have missed, "Yet, if such a narrative even exists within this portrait" part which immediately follows in third line, page 82. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC) I read the pages in question multiple times, and am unable to see any piece which supports the text "led into Sati by bearded men who are Mughal courtiers". This is indeed a serious misrepresentation of the source. Js82 (talk) 07:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Support replacement - The current text accurately reflects the source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC) After looking at the source and the painting being commented upon, I disagree with author. I think there is at least one point of detail on which the author is 100% wrong, viz., the woman committing Sati never dresses as a widow, rather she dresses as a newly-wed. This leads to me to believe that the author doesn't know what she is talking about. Therefore, I support either deleting the entire source or at best keeping a minimal cursory mention as suggested by Soham321. More commentary below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

More detailed comments on the painting: It is quite clear to me that the Brahmins are blessing the woman or hailing her, the Muslim men are by and large asking the woman to stop, or trying to persuade the Hindus to stop this atrocity, women spectators are in awe with an OMG written on their faces and their hearts, the Muslim courtiers at the top hanging their heads with sadness or shame. The painting is quite clear, the author is clueless. I recommend getting rid of the whole thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: To clarify, you seem to be disagreeing with Banerjee, the author. Does newly-wed dress = court dancer dress? I am fine with "getting rid of the whole thing", or faithfully summarizing the source fully as best as we can. What is the useful part in the "support replacement" version? Do we really need it? BTW, see the dress in other images currently in this article, they do not look like newly-wed dress or court dancer dress (but may be their dress standards were different in that era). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I can't access the source, but I also wonder why this should be included at all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@MSW, the woman is wearing her saree in a special way, going around each leg separately, which supports mobility. No doubt dancers have to wear it that way, but many traditional dressing styles, e.g., in Maharashtra, do it this way. It is laborious to wear the sari this way, but it is done for festive occasions, which is what is being depicted here. The woman committing Sati is going to be a permanent bride for her husband in the netherworld.

But my contention is more basic. The author complains that the woman isn't dressed as a widow. This shows total lack of cultural knowledge. Can you find an authentic source that says a woman committing sati is supposed to dress as a widow?

Support replacement basically means I support Soham's simplified text. Better yet, get rid of the whole thing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I am tempted to give Banerjee good faith benefit of doubt. May be she knows the source and context of the painting better than we do. Given the lack of cIarity, I agree to deleting the whole painting discussion in Mughal Empire section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - the replacement is all but meaningless, saying merely that Mughal painted depictions of Sati exist (a claim which hardly requires the controversy-implying "states Banerjee" qualification). Sourced content dealing with contemporary native depictions of Sati and what those depictions might indicate about contemporary native attitudes towards sati are obviously on-topic material. If there is a problem with clarity in expressing what the source says, then the content should be rewritten not deleted. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

In that case, some piece of info seems to be mussing. It should be something like this:

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

But it's still not clear to me if this impression 'the Sati not dressed like' etc. is Banerjee's comment, or MSW's interpretation (and this not an invitation for more asides on persons, mind you!). Is someone willing to quote the whole text? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Asides on the person"? I gave a link to the painting and Banerji's text. You can make up your own mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: thanks. With "asides," I mean, ehm, 'statements directed at persons', to put it mildly. You know what I mean. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

So, Banerjee starts with stating:

"The illustration in figure 2.1 is noticeably different from other portraits in the genre; it is precisely mapped and devoid of the emotional turmoil of many other portrayals of sati discussed in this book."

Which means that this commentary is about a specific painting; the Wiki-article should mention that. And this painting is "noticeably different from other portraits in the genre"; so, it seems WP:UNDUE to me to give it so much attention. Isn't there anything more general to be said about the typical paintings banerjee is referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support deletion, undue as explained by @JJ. Doesn't deserve the attention, too much weight to a painting and (contested) analysis of one author. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

4. "Alleged inaccuracies and distortions in the 'Mughal Empire' section"

Soham 321 wants to know "Whether the alleged inaccuracies and distortions in the 'Mughal Empire' section tend to portray the Mughals in a poor light in a way that is not supported by the source material (the Banerjee book)." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

This question is not clear, nor neutral. What is "Alleged inaccuracies and distortions in the 'Mughal Empire' section"? Are you referring to your allegations, or something else? And what do you mean with "portray[ed] in poor light"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment:Refer to this diff for an example of how Sarah's edit is not being supported by the reference being cited. Her unsupported edit of bearded mughals escorting the woman to commit sati is not only unsupported, it suggests the mughals were responsible for the sati. Not only is this not supported by the source, but the source has this quote (see page 82 of the book being cited, first line): "Both sides, the picture's narrative appears to suggest, contest for the widow, the brahmins to burn and the Mughals to save her." And this is a link to the google books edition of the book being cited here.Soham321 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the quote; unfortunately, my access to the source stops at p.77... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

5. Jauhar

MSW reverted Soham321's edit regarding "Sati-like such as jauhar practices".

• Soham321: " Instances of Sati continued during the time of Akbar, despite the Emperor's attempt to ban the practice. Upon the death of Man Singh, sixty women committed Sati."
• MSW: "Instances of Sati and Sati-like such as jauhar practices continued during the time of Akbar. Upon the death of Man Singh, sixty women committed Sati. After Muslim armies in Akbar's time conquered Chittorgarh in Rajasthan, Hindu women committed jauhar or mass suicide by burning themselves."

There is a small error in this. Copy-pasting from last @JJ version: "Instances of sati and sati-like such as jauhar practices continued during the time of Akbar. For example, upon the death of Man Singh, the chief associate of Akbar, sixty women committed Sati. After Muslim armies in Akbar's time conquered Chittorgarh in Rajasthan, Hindu women committed jauhar or mass suicide by burning themselves."

References

According to Soham321, MSW is mixing up Jauhar with Sati in an unacceptable way, arguing that "This article is about Sati; there is a different WP article about Jauhar." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Jauhar is discussed with sati, within sati articles and books, in numerous secondary and tertiary sources/handbooks/encyclopedia. For example, see pages 21-25 of Wasserman's Oxford Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention published by Oxford University Press, page 948 of Young's Encyclopedia of Women and World Religion published by Macmillan, Harlan's Religion and Rajput Women: The Ethic of Protection in Contemporary Narratives published by University of California Press, etc. To quote one,

(page 160, footnote 8): "In this she resembles the sati who dies in jauhar. The jauhar sati dies before and while her husband fights what appears to be an unwinnable battle. By dying, she frees him from worry about her welfare and saves herself from the possible shame of rape by triumphant enemy forces." – Lindsey Harlan, Professor of Religious Studies

This is common in sati-related scholarly literature. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: But in wikipedia we have a separate article on Jauhar. Mixing up Jauhar and Sati only serves to confuse the two different terms. The sati article on WP should be about sati, and jauhar article about jauhar. Of course i have no objection to a separate section in both articles comparing the two terms (the title of this section could be 'Sati and Jauhar'), and how they are similar. But you can't mix up both the two different things anywhere else in the article since that would confuse the reader. Remember: wikipedia is an encyclopedia for generalists, not specialists. Soham321 (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support deletion: I agree that the motivations for Jauhar are completely different from those of Sati. So, I think its mention should be removed. In fact, "Upon the death of Man Singh, sixty women committed Sati" gives the impression that Man Singh had sixty wives, did he?-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Annemarie Schimmel's book does not mention 60 wives, but does state on page 166 that Man Singh was the chief associate of Akbar and 60 women committed sati when he died. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, Sati in only the self-immolation of wives. So, if Schimmel doesn't say they were wives, and it seems ridiculous to assume they were all wives, we should get rid of it. Verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: What did they call self-immolation by unmarried woman / women on a dead man's pyre? A widow's self-immolation is certainly sati. Do we have reliable sources that state that "self immolation of engaged but not yet married or unmarried women on a dead man's funeral pyre" is not sati? I remember reading something contrary, so will check. Any links you provide would be helpful. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, the original term is sati-sahagamana, as you know, "the wife going along" with her husband. A fiancee could regard herself as morally married, and that would count as sahagamana as well. Any other form of self-immolation has no basis in the shastras. (By the way, in Ramayana, Sita immolated herself twice, the first time unsuccessfully. Neither of those instances was a sahagamana. On the other hand, Romeo and Juliet and Heer Ranjha were both sahagamanas.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I recall that sattee, the ancient Indo-European practice, may also have been carried out with concubines etc. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support deletion Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Next steps

@DIY Editor:, @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan: After the WP:AE process, the filer of this RfC @Soham321 is now indef blocked for other reasons, and has posted taking a break from wikipedia. These RfCs feel rushed. In the interest of the community's time and effort, I wonder what the process should be? Keep all RfCs open, or close some/all of them? I am inclined to close at least some of them, let discussion continue and evolve first. I will also like to request @Kautilya3 to revise the Mughal Empire section. After adequate discussion, we can always open a new RfC that is properly formulated per guidelines, if and when needed. What are your suggestions? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The normal practice would be to close the RfC's started by blocked users. But, since other people have already commented, and the consensus seems already clear, I think you should feel free to edit the page as per the visible consensus. The RfC(s) can be closed in the normal fashion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree, except for the Banerjee part; to give so much attention to one atypical painting seems undue to me. But I've already mentioned that. Do you mind if I go through the sections again, and close them with a conclusion? Best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: I don't mind. It is worth doing because @Soham321 has posted these RfCs on many community noticeboards, such as Original Research, NPOV, Reliable Sources and more, inviting the following @Soham321-@DIY Editor argument over "spamming multiple noticeboards with this 1 day old dispute" remark. The community volunteering on these boards have enough on their hands. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I think all three of us that commented on the Banerjee issue were agreed. So I don't see a problem. The only issue that we didn't explore enough was whether the Mughal Empire was misrepresented. I don't know enough about it. But getting rid of the Banerjee painting discussion will help. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Done. If there is an objection, or someone re-adds Banerjee, we can discuss it further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I've closed the RfC. If there are points of contention, then feel free to start a new one. --regentspark (comment) 20:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sati (practice). 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/20091025224737/http://nrcw.nic.in/shared/sublinkimages/13.htm to http://nrcw.nic.in/shared/sublinkimages/13.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101002080411/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1538375.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1538375.cms
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091025224737/http://nrcw.nic.in/shared/sublinkimages/13.htm to http://nrcw.nic.in/shared/sublinkimages/13.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes called "Synth"

Who wants to point out which part is Synthesis ? Js82 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I like the other version better. Why do you prefer your version? —DIYeditor (talk) 07:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you really supporting removal of sourced content because you "do not like it" ? Js82 (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Sati used to be a common practice when Sikhism arose in the late 15th century," is unsourced and reads like a opinion since Sati didn't stopped or reduced with the rise of Sikhism, but you can provide me a reliable source. I couldn't verify if there is a source like, ""Women in Sikhism", in, Concepts in Sikhism", that you cited, though I find one of the author you mentioned, Gurbachan Singh Talib, he mostly publishes from Punjab University. I don't see relevance of a quotes from Guru Nanak when "Sikh theology does not support the Sati practice" is already mentioned. My Lord (talk) 08:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Js82: I think asking your reasoning before I weigh in is a fair question. Can you summarize what it is your prefer about your version? Point by point? —DIYeditor (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"Sati was a common practice in Guru Nanak's milieu" see Nikki-GK-Singh source. There is no intention to imply that Sati stopped with the rise of Sikhism. GS Talib was a Padma Bhushan & chair at BHU. But quoting his source is not even central. Even if I picked a single source out of the three I added (just to add weight, otherwise someone may have asked for more sources), we can more or less summarize in the same manner. Adding a quote from the scripture helps because it provides context to the discussion, and also because the scripture is the central authority in Sikhism. It is not a surprise that all three sources I added have also included the quote. Js82 (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No reason to use quotes when it has been already described in the sentence. You can improve that sentence but propose here what you want to add. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ummm...actually No. Multiple WP:RS, when discussing Sati and Sikhism, have used the quote, and based their discussion around it. So, the quote does have its place.

In any case, sorry to say but most of what I'm seeing here seems to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I have already spent several hours to read/distill multiple sources. If you guys have a better summary, go ahead and add that, and feel free to use/modify the one I put in. I would also ask some other editors (maybe @Kautilya3:, @Joshua Jonathan: if they are reading this ?) to chime in. I would just defer to their judgement, whatever it is. Thanks for your feedback nonetheless. (@DIY: It has nothing to do with what I prefer/like. I have just summarized multiple WP:RS discussing Sikhism+Sati.) Js82 (talk) 07:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't have to "just defer to their judgement", they are not the owner of this article and neither their opinion is more important than ours. You were adding unsourced content and quotefarming which has been entirely objected. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this a joke ? Unsourced ? If you do not read the sources and jump up and down claiming whatever you want, it's not my problem. I'm trying my best to be nice, but do not make the mistake of construing that as some sort of weakness. You were the one who started this claiming WP:Synth, but all you have said to back that up is ...hmmmm... nothing. Just let it go. Js82 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - There is a case for mentioning more prominently the fact that the Sikh gurus condemned Sati and also the fact that they redefined the meaning of 'Sati'. I do not see the need for a quotation from a religious text. The most important part is how the practice occurred, or not occurred. The sentence "Following the strong condemnation and prohibition by the Gurus, the Sati practice of widow burning was not observed in the Sikh populace for a long period" is the key. However, I did not see a source mentioned for it. I recommend that consensus text be worked out here to avoid unnecesary edit-warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya, thanks. That sentence is based on Altekar source itself (see p 131, last para, 1st line). Will wait to hear what JJ has to say (if anything) on adding/not adding the quote as well. Js82 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

He has written many books, which one you are pointing? Link to the page or provide the quotation for making it easy for others. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you really asking me to spoon-feed you ? There is only one Altekar sourced referred to in the Sikhism section. For someone acting "all expert" as you have been (claiming "synth", "quotefarm", "unsourced", and what not), you are displaying a remarkable lack of effort & sincerity really. Just let it go. Js82 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)