Talk:Violence against women during the Partition of India: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Lead: Reply
Line 32: Line 32:
:::::::: Well, you said it is not a contest, which is a noble thought. But a contest is precisely what you are making it. So, either keep both or keep neither. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 02:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:::::::: Well, you said it is not a contest, which is a noble thought. But a contest is precisely what you are making it. So, either keep both or keep neither. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 02:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
:Being in the business of the academic world myself and recognising the value of each source for what its worth I will comment that this sentence "It has been estimated that twice as many Muslim women were abducted compared to Hindu and Sikh women, due to the actions of organised Sikh jathas." is sourced to a highly excellent '''tertiary''' source. Since the tertiary sources are in the business of "balancing statements", to question its leadworthiness is uncalled for and is not a valid comparison to the sentences being copied from the body into the lead. To call for its exclusion is a desperate POV counter to the exclusion of Hindu POV content. The two are sinply incomparable given their presence or absence in the tertiary sources. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 16:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
:Being in the business of the academic world myself and recognising the value of each source for what its worth I will comment that this sentence "It has been estimated that twice as many Muslim women were abducted compared to Hindu and Sikh women, due to the actions of organised Sikh jathas." is sourced to a highly excellent '''tertiary''' source. Since the tertiary sources are in the business of "balancing statements", to question its leadworthiness is uncalled for and is not a valid comparison to the sentences being copied from the body into the lead. To call for its exclusion is a desperate POV counter to the exclusion of Hindu POV content. The two are sinply incomparable given their presence or absence in the tertiary sources. [[User:JosephusOfJerusalem|JosephusOfJerusalem]] ([[User talk:JosephusOfJerusalem|talk]]) 16:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
:To [[user:Kautilya3]], Thanks for joining this article's discussion, though I note there are no contributions by you on the article itself and the arrival is quite sudden. I wonder what makes you think it becomes a contest by not writing both or neither. You need to abandon this POV attempt of creating false equivalences and cite a policy based reason why Wikipedians should write both or neither. [[WP:NPOV]] does not ask for it. The information you want in the lead is too bulky for it and belongs in the body. The older text whose value Hindu POV pushers want to dilute is a general information such as "most victims of the Holocaust were Jews" is general enough to be in the lead.--[[User:NadirAli|NadirAli نادر علی]] ([[User talk:NadirAli|talk]]) 06:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:17, 21 December 2017

Lead

@Dilpa kaur: I am not seeing how MOS:LEAD has been violated. The lead gives WP:DUE weight. Raymond3023 (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the lead is meant to summarise the main points from the body, details belong in the body, should i add details abt ethnic cleansing in Gurgaon into the lead too? Dilpa kaur (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article should state where the violence started from. Given that you had removed the entire information first then you started to point contradiction with the lead policy, doesn't make a lot of sense. Capitals00 (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specific incidents are not encyclopedoc content, especially in a summary introduction.JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This whole incident is a "specific" incident". Unless you agree to remove "It has been estimated that twice as many Muslim women were abducted compared to Hindu and Sikh women, due to the actions of organised Sikh jathas" then only neutrality will be achieved, because we have to mention that who started it if you are mentioning the atrocities, otherwise it is incomplete. Capitals00 (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals00, you need to read WP:BALANCE. Achieving neutrality does not mean balance Hindus and Muslims. This is not a contest. That Muslims outnumbered Hindus among the abducted is not a specific incident but a general detail. KA$HMIR (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can refer to the pre-sock[1] lead when it was the whole article. It didn't included any such details, also there is no prohibition in providing details about who started the violence on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the lead sentence comparing Muslim vs Hindu/Sikh women makes it look precisely like a contest. I suggest removing it. I also don't think the Rawalpindi detail belongs in the lead, despite it being the "beginning" of partition violence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous revisions of a Wikipedia page are not a proof for anything. Verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information, see WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Show a tertiary source which says Muslims started the violence, for it to be worthy of being in the lead. Note Fowler&fowler's [[2]] on the importance of tertiary sources for the lead. Also source does not say Muslims started the violence. It just says violence started in Rawalpindi district. Nothing more. WP:OR prohibits us from deducing anything further unless explicitly stated in the source like "Muslims started the violence in Rawalpindi". Even if true, it does not call for copying two whole paragraphs of the body into the lead which is meant to summarise the entire article. KA$HMIR (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you said it is not a contest, which is a noble thought. But a contest is precisely what you are making it. So, either keep both or keep neither. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the business of the academic world myself and recognising the value of each source for what its worth I will comment that this sentence "It has been estimated that twice as many Muslim women were abducted compared to Hindu and Sikh women, due to the actions of organised Sikh jathas." is sourced to a highly excellent tertiary source. Since the tertiary sources are in the business of "balancing statements", to question its leadworthiness is uncalled for and is not a valid comparison to the sentences being copied from the body into the lead. To call for its exclusion is a desperate POV counter to the exclusion of Hindu POV content. The two are sinply incomparable given their presence or absence in the tertiary sources. JosephusOfJerusalem (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To user:Kautilya3, Thanks for joining this article's discussion, though I note there are no contributions by you on the article itself and the arrival is quite sudden. I wonder what makes you think it becomes a contest by not writing both or neither. You need to abandon this POV attempt of creating false equivalences and cite a policy based reason why Wikipedians should write both or neither. WP:NPOV does not ask for it. The information you want in the lead is too bulky for it and belongs in the body. The older text whose value Hindu POV pushers want to dilute is a general information such as "most victims of the Holocaust were Jews" is general enough to be in the lead.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violence_against_women_during_the_Partition_of_India&oldid=816420194"