User talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Pink sandbox

Looking at the sources:

1)"Godrej ‘Nupur Jagruti’- Dahej Ke Khilaf Ek Awaz" Doesn't actually verify that dowry is called "dahej". In any event, I question that phrase. I'm gathering that "dahej" is a translation of dowry into some language of India. Which one? Is the same word used across India, by all people? If it is, it's actually not necessary to find a citation, but, if that's just one language's translation, I'd just leave it out.

2) You don't need a citation for the word "jewelry". Instead, what you need is a citation for the whole sentence that speaks in general about dowries. This, actually is a key point. You can't use a single, specific case as evidence for a general claim. What I mean is, in this article, all I know for sure is that one specific family used jewelry to pay for a dowry--I have no idea if this is common, or, if, in fact, this is a unique occurrence. This is actually a key lesson you need to learn, because I saw the same problem on your "Corruption" articles: one specific situation can't (usually) be used as evidence for a general claim. Or, at least, when you do, you have to be careful how you phrase the sentence.

3) This looks to me like you completely misreading the source. Here is the relevant line: "Palak went one more step further and facilitated the hastamelap-a Hindu marriage ritual wherein bride's parents put her hand into that of the groom's as kanyadaan- evoking an emotional round of applause from all present on th occasion." I don't see anything about dowries, about giving gifts, etc--instead, all I see is an act of holding hands. How is that related to this article?

I'll look at more later; feel free to respond to these if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The next day

More looking at sources:

4) (nationalrighttolife) Very much not a reliable source. That is, instead, a hyper-partisan source whose purpose is to provide information to promote a pro-life agenda. That means that we cannot rely on them to provide reliable information. But even if that were a reliable source, it wouldn't support the sentence as you wrote it. The "financial burden" part is a quotation from "Dr Pascoal Carvalho", and thus, is just his opinion. Since we have no reason to believe he is a particular expert on dowries or the financial system in India, including his opinion would violate WP:UNDUE.

5) ("Govt looks to tighten abortion norms") A reliable source, but it doesn't talk about dowries. When you are adding sources to an article, you don't need to verify things that are already verified in other articles. The problem is that if you add that source here, it looks like you're implying that that source makes a connection between dowries and female infanticide/foeticide, which it does not.

6) (twocircles.net) Not a reliable source. For websites that are not clearly mainstream newspapers or magazines, you should check their "About page" if they have one. You can see this site's about page Here. You'll see that they admit to being a partisan source, and that they don't follow editorial policy WP would consider necessary to be recognized as an RS. Don't get me wrong: their mission is wonderful, but Wikipedia doesn't recognize sources of that type. This is the real source of Wikipedia's systemic bias, but RS is, alas, not flexible in this instance.

7) (Census) This is good, reliable source, but, again, it doesn't belong here, since it has no connection to dowries.

8) (AFP) This is excellent. This one source, actually, covers most of the last 4, since it clearly links foeticide and dowries. So, what we want to do is find a way to replace all of those with this source (or others that cover the issue equally well).

Give me some feedback on this and the section above. Let me know if this is making sense, or ask questions, or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I will make changes as per the points mentioned.

• What is the the easier way to add content to wikipedia ?

a) Writing content yourself and finding references. It does not help and the references are difficult to find and does not specifically address the content that we have written.

b) Searching for keywords and writing the content found is search in your own words. But in that case we may not find exactly what info we want to give.

I am also reading Wikipedia:Starting an article to find more. Thanks Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You ask an extremely smart question here, and the answer is a bit complicated, so I want to think about how to explain first; I'll get back to this tomorrow. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's see if I can answer this. In part, the answer depends upon how well you know the subject. If the subject is one that you have previously studied or are highly familiar with, you'll probably already know sources you can turn to, so you can follow course (a). If for some reason you're writing on a subject you don't know all that well, then you basically have to follow (b). Why this distinction? Well, it's because there's a (somewhat) hidden assumption in both courses that runs counter to the way Wikipedia works. That is, we should never be trying to give a certain type of info, or to pass on a certain perspective. Rather, all that we are allowed to write on Wikipedia is what good, reliable sources have already said.

Now, let me pull back from that a bit. Obviously, we all have many different biases and opinions. Most of us would be happier if the information written on Wikipedia matched those biases. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has as a principle the idea that it is possible to present information neutrally and without bias (Wikipedia is wrong about this, but that doesn't matter because to edit here we have to play within their rules). The way that Wikipedia constrains us is by requiring that we never start writing from ourselves, but always start writing from our sources. In a certain sense, Wikipedia should be nothing more than a collection of summaries of what reliable sources have already said on things, balancing out varying viewpoints so that they are represented with the same weight as they are represented in the real world.

So how does this work when we write articles. Let me give you an example of my own. I am a feminist--I believe that men and women should be treated equally and have equal opportunities. Further, I believe that our current political, economic, educational (etc.) systems are heavily biased in favor of men (this is in most countries, although there are, of course, many exceptions). Thus, I would prefer to write in ways and on topics that help bring about feminist based change in the world. Sometime last year, I became aware of the Women's Image Network awards, which is a set of awards given yearly since 1993 to movies, actors, etc. that promote positive gender role images (you can see more info on their website). They don't currently have an article on Wikipedia, so I started to draft one in my userspace; the draft is currently at User:Qwyrxian/Women's Image Network Awards. Unfortunately, after conducting some extensive searching online, through news archives and their own press releases, I can't find enough sources to comfortably argue that the group or the awards they give are notable. This makes me sad. But, because I try to play by Wikipedia's rules, I have no choice but to leave the draft in my user space. Hopefully, at some point in the future, the group will, in fact, get a little more press, which I can then add and move the draft into mainspace. Even though I don't actually believe in neutrality and notability in an abstract sense, I do believe in Wikipedia's mission and goals, and believe that following those policies the encyclopedia is better.

So, when thinking about dowries in India, we have to focus on what reliable sources have said, no matter what our own opinions of them are. We need to present the subject neutrally. We can certainly include criticism if/when we find it, but we need to be sure that we properly attribute that criticism and that it is given due weight. One suggestion I have is that you try to look outside of just news sources. The dowry system (along with foeticide and general gender issues in India) has been the subject of a lot of academic research, if I remember correctly (I knew someone who wrote their Master's thesis on the subject). Those sources (books or journal articles) might give you more useful information, because they will be about the subject as a whole, rather than individual instances. Of course, the problem is that journal and book research is tough if you don't have access to a university library. Sometimes information is still available, but sometimes not. If you think you've found a useful article but can't see it, it is sometimes possible to find someone else on Wikipedia who can help you get the info--for example, you can try Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. To be perfectly honest, one of the reasons I don't create new articles is because I don't have access to an English library, although I probably will in the future, and the topics I'm most interested in aren't usually covered in newspapers or other online sources. That's fine, because I feel like I make a positive contribution to the project in my own way, and I have been able to create some content by substantially rewriting/reworking existing articles.

Sorry for the crazy long answer. Please ask any questions you have; I'm trying to give a general background here in how we (especially I) work. I'll also take a look at the dowry stuff again and look at more refs. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

From "History" onward

History

It would be useful if we could get a scholarly source that could verify the history of the dowry in India--how long has it existed, was it only among the wealthy originally or has it regularly been widespread, etc. The second sentence about Mumbai is a great find; the source is borderline, as a tourism site, but it is an official government tourism site, so good enough for me. I'd remove the last sentence; I don't understand what it means, and it's unsourced.

Domestic violence (minor note--only the first word of a section is capitalized, except for proper names)

The BBC source is excellent, and, in fact actually can be used in several other places. For example, for source 5 above, I was concerned that that source didn't explicitly connect female foeticide and dowry payments, but this source does! We can certainly use a single source in more than one place in the article (I'll show you how to do that later). Source 11 (Deccan Herald) really bothers me. I know that in India its far more common to openly editorialize in newspaper articles than in the US, this article seems to be nothing more than an extended essay. However, it doesn't seem to say what it's connected to anyway; at best, it seems to say that most "dowry deaths" are actually fabricated. But that claim is sourced to some vague "legal fraternity", and I don't even know what that means. I think we should exclude this source, and simply remove that whole clause.

Laws

The next section is good, and well sourced. I think it should certainly be kept short, as there is already a main article on this.

False dowry allegations

Ugh, this section, and the associated article, make me absolutely ill. That is, I guarantee, given every trend with every law every created to help improve gender relations, that there are far fewer false allegations than there are true ones, much less the even larger percentage who never report anything (or who are killed before they can report it). That is, speaking as a feminist, the Supreme Court's claims offend me. Unfortunately, I am bound by Wikipedia's policies to include the information; however, I need to do so carefully and neutrally. First, nothing in that article indicates that only 2% of allegations lead to convictions, and such an extraordinary claim needs a clear source. Second, even if you had a source saying that, that doesn't at all indicate that the allegations are false--in fact, it more likely indicates that the law is hollow and isn't applied properly by law enforcement or justices. That is, it's highly unlikely that 98% of reports are false reports, given that making such a false report ensures further victimization and loss of all spousal support. Similarly, I want to remove the use of "many have misused", because that's not what the article says. In fact, the way I read that article, the SC says "There's suddenly a whole bunch more of these. When they're false, they're bad, so we should be careful they're not false and the gov't should consider amending the law." So the article should probably say something like "The Supreme Court requested that the government consider amending the Dowry Law because it has led to a significantly increased number of claims, some of which are false or exaggerated". This stays within the boundaries of what the article actually says, I think. However, it is tough for me to decide, as I'm so personally moved by the issue. I'd eventually like to get someone else's opinion on what how to represent that article.

Summary

Try making some of the changes listed on this page; or, if you think it would help you more, I could make the changes myself and you can see them. After that, I want to show you how to properly cite articles so that you're not just using bare URLs in your references. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, let me try and improve on the points you have enlisted. Afterwards you may review and make final changes before taking it to the article space. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the citation i understand the using full details of the citation improves the citation, but on the other hand it increases overall alphabets of the citation, when a newcomer tries to edit the page, there is greater chances of making editing difficult for him/her. On the edit page reading the whole sentence or paragraph becomes very difficult for a newcomer. Till media-wiki gets out with some improvment and find ways to let a newcomer see the edit text in a new way where the cite alphabets doesn't interfere in reading the paragraph while editing, it would be better if cite have lesser number of alphabets. These are my views, i might be wrong also. Still if taking this into consideration you advice to use full cite, than i would be happy to learn and use it. Thanks. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes, there is an easier way for new people to do citations; the foolish thing is that it's labeled as some sort of "advanced editing tool"--I didn't know about it til after I'd been editing seriously for several months. On the top right of your screen, go to "My preferences".

Then, click on the tab that says "Editing". Then, at the bottom of that page, makes sure both of the boxes in Usability are checked. Then, close your browser and re-open it. The next time you edit something, you'll see a bunch more options in your editing box. On the top right line, choose "Cite" (the arrow will point downward). Then, under that on the left, you'll see a pull down menu that says "templates". From there, you can choose 4 of the standard citation formats. When you choose one, it gives you a pop-up window that has fields where you can easily fill in the most important info. For newpaper/magazines, you want to have the title, the author's name (if there is one), the date the article was published, and, if it's online, the URL and the accessdate (the date you last checked the site). While it takes a little bit of effort to set up, this makes 90% of most citations much much easier. I wish the feature were automatically turned on for all new users, because then I think they'd be more likely to actually include full citations. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)