Ms Sarah Welch (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
In my opinion the fact that Sarah Welch continues to introduce inaccurate edits based on a misreading of the book shows her in poor light. If this behavior continues, I will be seeking sanctions against Sarah Welch.[[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 20:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
In my opinion the fact that Sarah Welch continues to introduce inaccurate edits based on a misreading of the book shows her in poor light. If this behavior continues, I will be seeking sanctions against Sarah Welch.[[User:Soham321|Soham321]] ([[User talk:Soham321|talk]]) 20:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
::@Soham321: On Napier, you cited two "The One and Only" oped blogs such as [http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/386071/none-dare-call-it-evil-jonah-goldberg "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. |
|||
::On Akbar, the article already summarizes his views from scholarly sources, and states, "Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in Sati". Please quit the [[WP:FORUM]]-y posturing on talk page, something you were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&diff=prev&oldid=682443596 sanctioned for] in part, in past, before your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Soham321&diff=prev&oldid=682603917 last full retirement] from wikipedia. On RfC, please note that you have participated in these, such as in one of our [[:Talk:Charvaka]] disputes. On Banerjee source about the painting, you seem to be misreading it (see pages 80-82). [[User:Ms Sarah Welch|Ms Sarah Welch]] ([[User talk:Ms Sarah Welch|talk]]) 20:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:49, 27 December 2016
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Blogs as source, and WP:SOAP
@Leii.val: Welcome to wikipedia. Please do not edit war, and respect WP:RS content guidelines. Blogs are unacceptable sources in this and other wiki articles. What you are adding has other issues, such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP. Please discuss your changes and gain consensus on this talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Deletion of sourced content, addition of unsourced content
@WalterJamy: Welcome to wikipedia. Please don't delete sourced content from this article, such as you did with this edit. Why remove the mention of Sati in Sikhism? Similarly, for new content, a reliable source is needed. Please see WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read the source before making allegations ? All changes are per the sources. Do you have problem verifying the source ?
- Also, since you raise the issue, the quoted examples of Sati in Sikhism/Jainism/Islam are just aberrations (few instances here and there). Hence undue for the lead. It was predominantly a Hindu practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WalterJamy (talk • contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- @WalterJamy: You are free to have your opinions, and whatever wisdom/prejudice you wish. We need to summarize the reliable sources, and the instances of Sati in Sikhism (Ranjit Singh) is notable and WP:DUE in the lead. Please discuss and gain consensus before making changes. No edit wars. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
PUCL blog and WP:RS
@JustBeCool: What evidence is there that the PUCL source was peer reviewed or had editorial oversight, per WP:RS guidelines? Do you have a second scholarly source? On Ikram summary, why remove the well supported "states Ikram, though not mentioned in the formal histories" part, or the Christian missionaries clarification, etc? This is required per WP:NPOV guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- BTW, the lead says the practice is obsolete. Are we sure about that? I thought I had seen news stories reporting that it still goes on, albeit not as frequently. - Sitush (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Sitush: The source says the custom is obsolete. The lead too. It may be inappropriate to imply a fringe or rare 1 in zillion instance/crime in modern times to be equivalent to Sati custom in their history. Note too the dispute, in the scholarly sources, whether the modern instances are Sati or suicide found elsewhere. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
- "Why remove the Christian missionaries clarification?" That was removed for the reason mentioned; extrapolating that the sources are in contradiction is original research. As an aside, they do not have to contradict each other. One could be saying Sati has decreased relative to what was before and the other saying that they witnessed sati occuring, perhaps like how you are saying sati is "obsolete" does not have to contradict that it is not non-existent today. Removing "not mentioned in the formal histories" was not intentional and I have no problem writing that in. Adding this information in this edit [1] by Ms Sarah Welch without the OR is ideal as it also brings more information to the bare history section of the long era of Muslim rulers. But that edit was also reversed by Sitush. It's with the claim that the PUCL is a "pressure group" that is "not a good idea" to use. I am fine with adding "according to PUCL" next to its information but I do not see how it is warranted to not use any of its information. It is not a blog as was first brought up. Nor is being a peer reviewed a requirement (it is more a recommendation) as is now brought up. JustBeCool (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- @JustBeCool: The peer review, fact checking process and editorial oversight is prudent, particularly for contentious well studied topics and historical claims. No PUCL, pressure/ agenda-driven groups and other dreadful sources in this article, to avoid WP:Soap-y, non-scholarly history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not sure why I wrote out all those points if you were not going to reply to them. Again, even without PUCL, why not add the version you did here [2] which does not have your OR. That version was also deleted by Sitush who only gave the reason that PUCL should be avoided but that version had nothing to do with PUCL. JustBeCool (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Sati during the Mughal era and Charles Napier
@Soham321: I have removed much of your "condense" and "deletes" in the Muslim Mughal paragraphs, as they made the section appear more favorable to Mughal in sati context, than what the sources are stating. Your edits weakened the NPOV presentation. We need to stick with the reliable sources. 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)
- 1. 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.
- 2. By removing the quote about Sati of Mughal Emperor Akbar (it is hard to believe what objection you could have to including Akbar's views on the practice of Sati as a footnote), and by mixing up Jauhar with Sati, inaccuracies and bias are being introduced into the article. The words in the article "however, he expressed his admiration for "widows who wished to be cremated with their deceased husbands"." are misleading; they suggest Akbar actually admired Sati (as long as it was not forcible). This is a mischaracterization of Akbar's position because clearly he was opposed to Sati as is clear by his efforts to ban the practice and also by his views on Hindu men who endorsed the practice.
- 4. Essentially what we are seeing, thanks to you now, is a politicized (hindu apologist) version of sati in the article where direct criticism of it from people like Sir Charles Napier and Akbar is scrubbed out. My position is what you consider NPOV is not actually NPOV. And how am i being "more favorable to Mughals" by giving a direct quote of Akbar on the practice of Sati, by removing the mixing up of "Jauhar" with Sati, and by clarifying that although Akbar expressed admiration for Hindu women who voluntary participated in Sati, he was contemptuous of Hindu men who allowed it, and made efforts to ban the practice. There is a well known case of Akbar personally stopping a case of forcible sati in which the widow of a recently deceased member of his nobility was being forced to do sati and he personally went to the house of this noble and stopped the sati. This also deserves inclusion in the main article since Akbar is widely considered by non-Hindutva historians as one of the greatest kings India has known (some consider him the greatest).
- 5. So my position is that instead of me being "more favorable to Mughals" it is you whose version is uncharitable to Mughals and also uncharitable to the British. Since the Charles Napier quote revealed that the British used extremely harsh force (rightfully so) in stopping the barbaric practice of sati and people like Napier deserve to be lauded for what they did.
- 6. I think this is a fit case for starting an RfC. I don't have experience in initiating an RfC so am unfortunately not able to do so immediately. Soham321 (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
To continue:
1. One of the edits i had removed was that i changed
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.
to
In Mughal court style paintings included in these memoirs, states Banerjee, the practice of Sati was depicted by the artists.
Ms Sarah Welch has now changed this to:
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.
The book from which this material is being taken from is available online: https://books.google.com/books?id=n7EYDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false (see pages 81-2)
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.
In my opinion the fact that Sarah Welch continues to introduce inaccurate edits based on a misreading of the book shows her in poor light. If this behavior continues, I will be seeking sanctions against Sarah Welch.Soham321 (talk) 20:41, 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.
- On Akbar, the article already summarizes his views from scholarly sources, and states, "Akbar issued an order to prevent any use of compulsion in Sati". Please quit the WP:FORUM-y posturing on talk page, something you were sanctioned for in part, in past, before your last full retirement from wikipedia. On RfC, please note that you have participated in these, such as in one of our Talk:Charvaka disputes. 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)