Talk:Sati (practice)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Sati

Sati is is Asian in general terms but it's a Hindu ritual or a religious ritual so please be more specific. By writing Asian it offends me as a person who is Asian but not Hindu.

i feel it's an effort to not to portray the negatives Hindu religion is and i don't deny you the right to portray Hinduism in a positive sense but not at the cost of offending me or many other people who didn't read it yet or didnt pay attention to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashourr (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

According to these reliable sources, the practice has been evident in Vietnam, Indonesia, China, and others. They are "some Asian communities". OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 18:25, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why an adjective?

QUOTE: The respected historian Anant Sadashiv Altekar END OF QUOTE

What 'respected'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.24.62 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing synthesis

I have removed synthesis where it was alleged as if some scholar had responded to the theory that Sati is pre Islamic. According to reliable sources Sati stones are found dating to 700CE, the only thing that the removed sources discussed was that "literature" does not discuss sati as much in the first millennium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeatlastChitchat (talk • contribs) 05:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sati (practice). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050205043742/http://lingayat.com:80/alingayat/alingayat.asp to http://www.lingayat.com/alingayat/alingayat.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

obsolete?

I dont think this term should be used in the lead, it seems contradictory considering there is a later section which deals with modern sati. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a hard one, because there is a (seemingly) reliable source which uses the term obsolete but other (seemingly) equally reliable sources saying it is still in practice, which contradict each other.

I suggest removing the term from the lead, and in a later section having something to explain that it is far less widespread than in the past and is considered to be obsolete by some sources. Sources should be respected, but when they contradict each other, they should not be quotes as fact, especially in the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 13:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: The 'obsolete' wording comes from WP:RS. The RS on modern instances question whether "1 case per 100+ million women every few years" is 'custom' or post-trauma suicide. It would be wrong to assert "modern sati" custom in the lead and conflate the two, when the RS are discussing both angles. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we should not use newspaper style sensationalist WP:SOAP-y language, just keep it encyclopedic. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

See references in this section. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Sarah. I agree that the lead should not mention modern sati, but by that logic, neither should it have any language that pushes the opinion that it doesn't exist by using the word obsolete. The problem with obsolete is that by definition can mean that sati no longer exists.

To make guesses regarding the motives of more recent deaths attributed to sati would be OR, the current use of the quote from Dinesh Bhugra is a far better option than trying to draw our own conclusions regarding motivation. Also, any claims regarding post-trauma suicide could be made just as validly for any death attributed to sati, 500 years ago or 5 years ago.

I was considered replacing obsolete with archaic which would satisfy the need to inform readers that this is a very old fashioned custom, without making any claims either way regarding its existence in modern times. In the lead we have to be careful regarding WP:UNDUE and any disputed claim in the lead, would need to be balanced with opposing views, as per Relative emphasis [1] - I don't think the lead is the place to show those opposing views, as they are dealt with adequately in later sections. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should give a list of sources that I feel are relevant in this discussion, so other editors can give their opinions.

I think those sources make it quite easy to support claims for modern sati, and while I don't want to have a sentence along the lines of "Sati (Sanskrit: satī, also spelled suttee) is an Indian funeral custom that is considered to be obsolete by some (+ref), while still being practiced in modern India (+ref) - they do show the need to remove the term obsolete from the lead. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

References

@Spacecowboy420: I looked at your sources. Rt.com is a developing news website, the article you quote is a news story oped (the main article includes these POV from newspapers) with WP:WWIN issues. The last one is SPS. For the second one can you identify the page number where it states, "Sati is a modern custom"? The only peer reviewed article you cite was published in 1981, and that too isn't saying it is a modern custom. Instead, it states the "voluntariness" and "obligatory" nature. So, for now, from your four, there is one peer reviewed WP:RS, which acknowledges "voluntariness" aspect, which makes it not a modern "custom", because a custom, which historically gave rise to the so-called customary laws, is a set of agreed or generally accepted standards and norms. But, let us avoid WP:FORUM-y discussion here.

As you acknowledge above, the cited sources in the lead do actually explicitly use the word "obsolete". Here is another 1988 article which also uses the phrase, "obsolete custom of sati". Here is a yet another source on "sati custom is obsolete". Here is yet yet another WP:RS using the "sati is obsolete" phrasing. The article should, and does, include a discussion of modern instances of sati-like suicide and discusses the different POVs on whether this is sati custom or non-customary suicide. The lead needs to rely to secondary and tertiary WP:RS, and it currently does.

Your proposed revision, "while still being practiced in modern India" is not appropriate, because your wording overstates the modern rare contested cases to be equivalent to sati custom in their history, and it implies a scholarly consensus. As the main article describes, there is no such consensus, only a discussion whether modern rare instances constitutes sati custom or non-customary voluntary suicide. To draw new conclusions that the RS do not make, is OR. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That was not my proposed revision. What I said was... " I don't want to have a sentence along the lines of "Sati (Sanskrit: satī, also spelled suttee) is an Indian funeral custom that is considered to be obsolete by some (+ref), while still being practiced in modern India "

that's the type of sentence I wish to really avoid, even if it would be likely to balance the lead. So, I guess we can agree on not making the lead any more long-winded that it currently is.

In the 1981 peer reviewed article, that you couldn't find mention of it being a modern custom, the clue is in the title "Sati in Modern India: A Report" anyway. All I propose is changing the word "obsolete" to "archaic" - as it will retain the fact that it is a very old fashioned custom, without implying either way, in regards to it being practiced now, as later on in the article there is sourced content regarding the existence of modern day sati. Anyway, I'm gonna change it - see what you think.

Another question about the lead. How do you feel about the mention of it being described as an Indian funeral custom? I have little experience on this subject, so I don't really know, is that fair given the sources/history? Is it better mentioned as an Asian funeral custom? Or even just as a funeral custom? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Spacecowboy420: I will leave your change for now, check sources if archaic wording is directly supported anywhere. If you find one, please share. But without RS that directly supports that wording, I may revert it (particularly if there is edit warring). Meanwhile, avoid extracting clues in the title "Sati in Modern India: A Report". That title can imply different things. Stating Sati to be Asian is incorrect and misleading, as it wasn't a custom in most of Asia. Perhaps we can change from Indian to South Asian custom, as that would be consistent with the main article (include Nepal, their pre-partition British India etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be unfair to say Asian custom, one or two incidents in other parts of Asia do not make it a custom, so yeah, South Asian might be a good option. What do you think? Do we lose any meaning from changing obsolete to archaic? I personally like the second choice, it's a cool sounding word and it reflects that attitude that most of the articles have towards sati. Like most stupid customs it belongs in the past. With articles like this, we have to follow sources and never mislead. However, we can choose our words carefully to give a subtle nuance, without implications or misdirection. The feeling you get from archaic is something that belongs 500 years ago, in another era. The feeling you get from obsolete, is an old cellphone, or VHS recorder from the 1980s. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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)

I have removed it. Dreadful source. - Sitush (talk) 06:32, 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 [2] 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 [3] 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)

is Sati obsolete?

the lead in the main article begins with the words "Sati (also spelled suttee[note 1]) is an obsolete Hindu funeral custom." Obsolete would clearly imply that Sati no longer occurs. But is that really so? Let me give a few examples:

• 1. Link1
• 2. Link2
• 3. Link3
• 4. Link4. Soham321 (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that the word "obsolete" be replaced with something like "rare". Soham321 (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, maybe "uncommon" would sound better than "rare" but I'm not sure that accurately conveys precisely how common it is or isn't. "Archaic" is a good word that preserves the intended connotation of obsolete without any confusion in meaning. —DIY Editor (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I like 'archaic' and would endorse replacing 'obsolete' with 'archaic'. Soham321 (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@DIY Editor: The Gilmartin source published by Cambridge University Press uses the word "obsolete", see the embedded quote. We had "archaic Indian funeral custom" in the older version of this article, but after some contested edits, went back to exactly what the Gilmartin source states. FWIW, just because there is a news article of 1 in 100+ million committing sati in a 10+ year period, which later scholarship questions if it really was sati, is a fringe phenomena, does not make it a "custom". That word "custom" connotes a "widely accepted way of behaving or doing something in a particular society". I have no strong preference on this, am fine with something that is NPOV, without OR, and will not attract a lot of edit warring over the lead sentence. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sati during the Mughal era and Charles Napier

@Soham321: I have removed diff 1 diff 2 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)

Ms Sarah Welch

• 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)

Response to Ms Sarah Welch:

• 1. I have participated in RfC's before, but have not yet initiated any RfC. I have requested Twobells to help me initiate an RfC on this topic if this subject interests him enough.
• 2. 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.
• 3. Your bringing up my previous topic ban which expired long ago is evidence of not dropping the stick. I strongly urge you not to bring up long expired topic bans in content disputes since doing so is a violation of WP:STICK and further evidence of your behavioral misconduct.
• 4. On the Napier quote, i gave references to it from one book and two different articles (not blogs) published in a WP:RS source (which satisfies WP:V)). Since this is a widely known quote i can give references to it from other sources as well. The Shermer book gives the full quote of Napier on Sati, not just a "passing mention". Soham321 (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Soham321: You misunderstand WP:STICK. See the bottom of the National Review ISIS oped web page. It reads, "The Corner. The One and only. FULL BLOG >". The Shermer book is not about sati, he makes a passing mention about it in a paragraph on page 112. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:50, 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)

@Js82: Sati and Sikhism overlap. Given the broadly construed admin sanctions on you currently, as clarified by @Ponyo about two months ago, please avoid getting involved on this article talk page. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced editorializing deleted

With this edit [4] I deleted text editorialized to imply that Tavernier's account of live burials was inaccurate because his "geographical claims about cities and rivers in Mughal ruled India" are allegedly inaccurate. This is unsourced editorializing. Furthermore, the cited source for the geographical inaccuracies claim says no such thing and in fact says the opposite: Tavernier's narrative is "much more accurate than has often supposed to be", his accounts "stand the test fairly well" , "distances seem to be stated with substantial accuracy", etc. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

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)

I have added back the content, with some modifications based on the comments here -- explicitly attributing the source to two of statements that were questioned above. I have also retained the quote from the scripture. As I said above, all the sources have also included the quote, and based their discussion around it. Adding the quote not only makes the text flow better, but also gives the reader a quick visual aid. Further, it is important to state directly and exactly what the Gurus themselves wrote. On the other hand, I have not seen any real reason to exclude the quote. If there is one, please mention it here and we can reconsider that part. Js82 (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now also taken out one sentence from around the quote. Js82 (talk) 07:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Barely any modification. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Rig Veda

Dear User:RegentsPark, did you check what you reverted back? "Looks like OR", when there are four sources given to conveniently look it up? If you check the article history, you will find that:

1. the cited translation was changed in June 2012, without changing the source. Note, that the main word was changed, upon which hinges the entire sati-rigveda connection.
2. this error was added to in February 2015, when the source of the misquoted translation was changed into the "Encyclopaedia Indica" - which isn't accessible to me even though there is a link provided, but I have sincere doubts that you will find this exact quote in it, including the pyre/house mixup.

To sum it up: Ever since 2015, the article cited a translation that was misquoted, that no longer fit the following text, and that was attributed to the wrong source.

So what did I do? I added Wilson (look up his article which is very specifically about the Sati/Rigveda connection); I found Jamison (look up her translation). If these scientists aren't valid sources in your opinion, I have no idea what is. I also restored the Kane translation (with the same old, dubious source, I admit, because I couldn't find actual copies of Kane). Still, the correct quotation from the correct yet dubious source should be better than a misquoted one from the inaccessible and wrong source. Otherwise, we could remove Kane. Wilson should suffice on his own, but then we'd also need to elaborate on Wilson's argument more because the Kane translation is missing which included the "pyre".

As the current version doesn't stand up to WPs standards, I will roll back the revert. Sincerely, --Enyavar (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Looks like I misread your edit. Apologies. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Dubious text

Some of the what is added here seems dubious and which I am endeavoring to correct.

It claimed first Sati stone was built around 700 CE. This claim is likely based on . What it says is that after 700 AD Sati began to be extolled and Sati stones began to appear. That the first Sati stone was built after 700 Ad is not said so, though it might create the confusion.

Sati stones were However Sati stones are known as early as 510 AD

Lawley's book states that Sati started becoming regular after 500 AD.

Using Lawley's book again a claim was made that "The practice remained limited to the warrior class among Hindus until the start of 2nd millennium CE." However, the article itself states that it spread to other castes. Lawley's book states that it was largely confined to the warrior clans, not that it remained only among them.

"This chronology has led to the theory that the increase in sati practice in India may be related to the centuries of Islamic invasion and its expansion in South Asia." This claim is not supported by Anand A. Yang's book. However, as of yet I am unable to read Encyclopedia Indica by S. S. Shashi so I am unsure. But it seems dubious and to be a self-hypothesis based on another hypothesis of the first sati stone appearing around 700 AD which is incorrect per reliable sources as already said. I do not think I should change this right now, but it seems dubious. 150.129.196.196 (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Claims attributed to SS Shashi, Yang and others

Among the many claims attributed to authors here are dubious. First one about Shyam Singh Shashi "the argument is that the practice came into effect during the Islamic invasion of India, to protect their honour from Muslims who were known to commit mass rape on the women of cities that they could capture successfully." This statement has been purported here to be from Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh Vol. 100.

I haven't found anything about sati or sati stones or rape of women in Muslim invasions in tha book of Shahsi. This statement is likely copied from this book by US Shaji Studies in Hindu religion. I do not know who he is but doesn't seem to be reliable anyway judging from his publisher "Cyber Tech Publications".

Fictional chronologies are also attributed to Anand Yang and Shashi about chronology of sati and sati stones with Muslim invasions, however I haven't found any such claim in them. Rather, someone has written their own conclusions into the article.

In the lede meant to be a summary, fictional timelines of spread of Sati were mentioned earlier and attributed to Hawley. What he has stated about occurrences of Sati is not about their spread but occurences. I have re-written it to comply with Hawley's statements which only occur from page 149 to 150. Please note that he isn't talking about its spread from 149 to 153. 124.253.2.30 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Why you tag bomb after claiming that you have read the book and you don't see the sources to be supporting the text and the source actually supports the text? I can verify that Yang source supports the information but I am yet to verify the one from Shashi which I can partially verify right now that the information has been supported by the source. In place of tag bombing, you need to request the sources instead on the appropriate noticeboard or use Template:Verify quote. ML ^talk 11:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have restored your rest of good faith edits. ML ^talk 12:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Yang doesn't cite the information I mentioned about chronology of Sati associated with Muslim invasions. Pages 21-23 are purported to cite the information. But Yang has never made such claims. Please, read his article in Women and Social Reform in Modern India: A Reader.

I have added 4 tags. I don't think that's a big deal.

Shashi's book isn't available for open view, however you can search using words in the snippet preview here Google Books. I have searched any term related to Sati or any chronology claimed here but turned up with nothing. This also makes me doubt how can anyone know about these quotes and claims when it is not on sale or available in full preview on Google Books.

As I have said the statement is likely taken from US Shaji's Studies in Hindu religion. I am not the one who deceived others here. 203.134.197.23 (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

So you are now saying that "book isn't available for open view" while you are tag bombing after claiming that you have read the whole book.[5] The quote has been already provided to you, er your own message. I am not sure what else you are looking now. Would you stop making blanket reverts and hopping off to different IPs for edit warring? ML ^talk 12:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote isn't from the book of anthropologist Shyam Singh Shashi claimed to be here, it's from US Shaji. That is a big difference and whoever has done this is unacceptable. I don't know who US Shaji is or if he can be considered reliable enough.

If you read last para of Yang's article on page 21 to 22, you'll find him stating that sati reached its peak in some areas even before any Islamic conquests. He or any scholar doesn't cite chronology of Muslim invasions. While he only states that according to one scholar the practice was increasing towards end of 1st millenium, there is no mention of Muslim conquests. Rather the only attribution is to internal warfare between castes and tribes.

Throughout his article, yang only disputes the attribution of rise of Sati to Muslim conquests. Someone has however added their own statements and attributed it to him. 203.134.197.23 (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

What I said here was I searched the online version of Shyam Singh Shashi's Enclopaedia Indica [6], "from searching the online version of Shashi's book". I referred to searching its snippet version. You are not understanding me. 203.134.197.23 (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Some changes made

And these mostly include rectifications and more background. Vishnu Smriti was mentioned to be from 700-1000 AD. Many authors have their own dates for it. David Brick [7], page 205, believes Patrick Olivelle's argument that it was written in 6th-9th century.

It also has the tract about how sati spread and his theory about its past existence in Kashmir which is also mentioned by Enrica Garzilli, but her chronology predates his.

Aristobulus' work mentioned here is lost, the tract on widow-burning is preserved by strabp. Diodorus also had Onesicritus as source. I've also added others authors added to further expand upon past practice of Sati. The early Indian authors are better for documenting it over foreigners. 125.62.102.139 (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Not mentioned in Smriti?

Hi, the article says Sati is not mentioned in Smriti or Samhitas. But the following are from Smritis and Puranas.

Parasara Smriti 4.28 ”A widow, who immolates herself on the same funeral pile with her deceased husband, resides in heaven for ten millions of years, which is the number of hairs on the human body.”

Brihaspati Smriti 24.11 A wife is considered half the body (of her husband), equally sharing the result of his good or wicked deeds; whether she ascends the pile after him, or chooses to survive him leading a virtuous life, she promotes the welfare of her husband.

Vishnu Smriti 25.14 ”After the death of her husband, to preserve her chastity, or to ascend the pile after him.”

Atri Samhita 1.209 “The woman, who falls down from the funeral pyre, [of her husband], or who gets no menses on account of a disease, becomes purified by a Prajapatya and feeding ten Brahmanas.”

Daksha Samhita 4.19 “A woman, who, after the demise of her husband, ascends the funeral pyre, becomes of good conduct and lives gloriously in the celestial region.” Brahma Purana 10.75 ”Dying Immediately after the husband is the greatest duty of women." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.3.155 (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

India or South Asia

Sati is not just a practice found in India, but most of South Asia. Lahore was a major centre of sati. Why is sati being tagged to India only? (94.247.2.107 (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC))

It is obviously not South Asia, which includes South India, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Sikkim (which was an independent kingdom then), the Maldives, and sometimes also Afghanistan. It includes the hill tribes of India as well as the Dalits and tribals, among whom the practice is not found. Sati is not a feature of Muslim culture, neither is female infanticide and other practices that have roots deep in India's ancient Hindu culture, going back at least to the period of the Maurya Empire and its aftermath. (See the lead of India, for the historical subordination of women). It was a practice among Hindus and some Sikhs in the geographic (though not historical) region exactly co-extensive with the northern Indo-Aryan language-speaking areas of India under the British Raj. Although "South Asia," by itself, can't stand, we can certainly said, "a historical practice found chiefly among Hindus in the Indo-Aryan-speaking regions of South Asia Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» PS As it was chiefly a practise among Hindus, the Sikh outliers can be mentioned somewhere in the article, but not in the lead, which is a highly compressed summary. 17:48, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Deliberate Discrepancy

I'm refering to this conclusion about the Rig Vedic text:

> A reason given for the discrepancy in translation and interpretation of verse 10.18.7, is that one consonant in a word that meant house, yonim agree ("foremost to the yoni"), was deliberately changed by those who wished claim scriptural justification, to a word that meant fire, yomiagne.[172]

First of all, it would help if the words were glossed and ideally linked to wiktionary. I'm almost sure that -agne is akin to Agni, and I can guess that agree is akin to AGr. agora, which leaves me none the wiser for the sense "foremost". You'll note, the gloss is polysemous, so an explanation is in order one way or another.

Second, while I don't want to argue with the cited source, I can try to raise doubt about the exposition: We don't ascribe any deliberate intent to the authors interpretation, and in the same way we cannot subsume any deliberate intent to the questionable corruption.

By now, I suppose the original sense implied one becoming head of the house. If the hearth had reasonable significance, then the fire might be symbolic, and the corruption inadvertend. Anecdotally, there's the German idiom "den Löffel abgeben" (to die", literally "to pass the spoon"), supposedly from a time when a family shared in order of priority a single spoon. Further, if inheriting the household would include debt, then, with the bread winner gone, ritualistic suicide was perhaps an inevitable judgement.

Hence, one might want to find whether the words could have been once synonymous, or even cognate. Compare for example day supposed to relate to a root "burning", while Latin dies "day" has been likened to senses "bright, sky, god, lord".

Of course all that's futile without intimate knowledge of the vedic traditiins, so we rely on sources. I'd be surprised in there were not a single source refuting the subjective interpretation with not one reasonable argument. Anything calling bullshit would suffice for perspective, really. Rhyminreason (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Doubt on widely existence

Rajaram Mohan Roy died in 1833 in Britain. He took birth in 1772. Before his birth and after his death, the practice was not followed.

1674, Rajmata Jijabai died as 10 years widow. 1858, Rani Lakshmi Bai died as warrior, 5 years widow. These prominent personalities didn't followed Sati. If every Indian trace back to its family trees almost every family will have widows living and not following Sati.

Thou the lives of these widows were not smooth, but sati practice is mostly the practice of austere living than death.

The witch hunting did came to India via British. Same as veil came with middle eastern invaders.

Anecdotes cannot be termed as history. Akhilesh1019 (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Sati (practice) page

Materialscientist, I am trying to do a good faith edit on this article, which has a number of inconsistencies to the Wikipedia guidelines WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, WP:EXCESSDETAIL, WP:NPOV. The article is too long with 16299 words whereas recommended is 4000-10000 words. I would like to make a number of edits on this page, when I am trying to do that, you have reverted my edits. The article beats the second pillar of Wikipedia that an article should be written with a neutral point of view. The article should explain major points of view. Also no advocacy. This article takes a unilateral view that Sati practice was forced upon Hindu women, and does not mention any of these views "Sati became a practice to save honour against continued brutality by Invaders", "British colonisers ignored to consider the Invaders abuse that was inflicted on the society for generations", "British colonisers failed to recognise the impact of the Bengal famine instead chose to reform the religion", "Influence of Christian missionaries and abolitionists concerned with promoting the Christian education of the 'heathen' women". Jaykul72 (talk) 10:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I haven't really taken a good look at the article beyond the lead—well, I've added some pictures in section 1, but that's it—so I don't know how long these edits have been in the article. If long, please discuss on the talk page before you change them and give the discussion reasonable time. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mentions by various authors, euphemisms

@Jaykul72: I strongly object to your removal of various classical sources, but I object even more to your use of euphemisms to obscure the basic cruelty of this (now illegal) practice. Kleuske (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

specifically, I strongly object to phrases like were glad to burn along with their husbands without even a hint of a source. Kleuske (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Kleuske, I have read the books quoted for Strabo's references there are different views on the tribes. In the book A History of Ancient Geography, F. H. H. Guillemard it says that it was heard that one tribe had this practice, also there is no mention about holding those who refused to die in disgrace. However in another source, Jakub Pigoń, ed. (18 December 2008), The Children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres author says there several tribes. Therefore, I have updated the text that there are competing views. There is no mention of were glad to burn along with their husbands in my edit! Jaykul72 (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"According to Greek historian Diodorus (c. 1st century BCE), widow-burning was prevalent among the Cathaei people, who lived between the Ravi and Beas rivers." WP:UNDUE how is this relevant to Sati? Jaykul72 (talk) 10:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Rereading that, I overreacted. Apologies. Kleuske (talk) 10:52, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Classical sources or, for that matter, pre-1950 Indian historiography cannot be interpreted to be secondary (sources) and, therefore, be considered reliable for citing directly. (I would even strive for employing only post-1970 historiography.) Their methodology and reliability would be seriously in question. They could be used sparingly in direct quotations that illustrate a point made in a modern reliable source. See for example the excerpts from some sources below, which will nonetheless need to be paraphrased before their summarized content can go into this article:

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, p. 20, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8

• Quote: "Therefore, by the time of the Mauryan Empire the position of women in mainstream Indo-Aryan society seems to have deteriorated. Customs such as child marriage and dowry were becoming entrenched; and a young women’s purpose in life was to provide sons for the male lineage into which she married. To quote the Arthashāstra: ‘wives are there for having sons’. Practices such as female infanticide and the neglect of young girls were possibly also developing at this time, especially among higher caste people. Further, due to the increasingly hierarchical nature of the society, marriage was possibly becoming an even more crucial institution for childbearing and the formalization of relationships between groups. In turn, this may have contributed to the growth of increasingly instrumental attitudes towards women and girls (who moved home at marriage). It is important to note that, in all likelihood, these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent—such as those in the south, and tribal communities inhabiting the forested hill and plateau areas of central and eastern India. That said, these deleterious features have continued to blight Indo-Aryan speaking areas of the subcontinent until the present day."

Kautilya was an economist and military advisor to the king, his book Arthashastra is not a history book of memoirs but a book on statecraft, military strategy and tactics to be employed by the Mauryan empire. This is similar to 5th century BCE Sun Tzu's Art of War. As per Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Pearson Education, page 341 caution has to be exercised in extrapolating historical information on social life from this scholarly work on statecraft. Also, the period of Arthashashtra has been widely contested by historians to be pre-mauryan to post-mauryan period refer Thomas Trautmann Arthashastra: The Science of Wealth Jaykul72 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 90–, ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1

• Quote: "STATUS OF WOMEN DECLINES: Darkness can be said to have pervaded one aspect of society during the inter-imperial centuries: the degradation of women. ... The positions taken and the practices discussed by Manu and the other commentators and writers of dharmashastra are not quaint relics of the distant past, but alive and recurrent in India today – as the attempts to revive the custom of sati (widow immolation) in recent decades has shown. Child marriage, forced marriage, dowry and the expectation of abject wifely subservience, too, have enjoyed lengthy duration and continuity and are proving very difficult to stamp out."

• Ramusack, Barbara N. (1999), "Women in South Asia", in Barbara N. Ramusack, Sharon L. Sievers (ed.), Women in Asia: Restoring Women to History, Indiana University Press, pp. 27–29, ISBN 0-253-21267-7

• Quote: "The legal rights, as well as the ideal images, of women were increasingly circumscribed during the Gupta era. The Laws of Manu, compiled from about 200 to 400 C.E., came to be the most prominent evidence that this era was not necessarily a golden age for women. Through a combination of legal injunctions and moral prescriptions, women were firmly tied to the patriarchal family, ... Thus the Laws of Manu severely reduced the property rights of women, recommended a significant difference in ages between husband and wife and the relatively early marriage of women, and banned widow remarriage. Manu's preoccupation with chastity reflected possibly a growing concern for the maintenance of inheritance rights in the male line, a fear of women undermining the increasingly rigid caste divisions, and a growing emphasis on male asceticism as a higher spiritual calling."

In other words, Sati, which began early in Indian society. It and other patriarchal customs are possibly linked to limiting property rights strictly to male heirs. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

PS Please note that Guillemard is only the editor, not the author. The correction citation is: Tozer, Henry Fanshawe (1897), F. H. H. Guillemard MD (ed.), A History of Ancient Geography, Cambridge Geographical Series, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1– As it dates to 1897, it should not be used. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:50, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

PS Please also note that the correct citation for the second source is: Szczurek, Przemysław (2008), "Source or sources of Diodorus' account of Indian Sati/Suttee (Diod Sic. 19.33 to to 34.6)?", in Jakub Pigoń (ed.), The Children of Herodotus: Greek and Roman Historiography and Related Genres, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, ISBN 978-1-4438-0251-2 We cannot only list the editor. I have not examined this source in detail, but it at least cannot be disputed on grounds of its age. It was published in 2008. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Fowler, The book "A History of Ancient Geography" is not a book on Indian historiography. Is your comment in relation to this citation? Jaykul72 (talk) 12:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it is not all Geography; the citation in question is an instance of historical interpretation within geography, e.g. an attempt to chalk some of the "repulsive" habits of Indians (i.e. Hindus) to the reaction of their culture to inroads by Islam. See pages 151-152 in Tozer's book. You are correct though; I should not have used historiography, only "sources." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

• There are no references to Sati when Buddhist monks Faxian and Xuanzang visited India during 4th and 7th century. As late as Mauryan and Gupta period widow remarriage was possible but by medieval period the ban on remarriage had become a vogue. By Judith E. Walsh in the Brief History of India page 56 Jaykul72 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Golden Age narratives of the subcontinent in which the decline of Indian civilisation is said to have been hastened by the invasion of Muslims from Turkey and Persia, whose marauding hordes sexually assaulted Hindu women (among other alleged atrocities). by Associate Professor of Religion Eliza F Kent, Eliza F. Kent in the book Converting Women: Gender and Protestant Christianity in Colonial South India page 134 Jaykul72 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• The observance of Sati during the Greek conquests should be treated by historians as an isolated event. By Sree Padma book Vicissitudes of the Goddess: Reconstructions of the Gramadevata page 217 Jaykul72 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• There are few known instances of Sati in the early times. Widow remarriage was accepted during the Buddhist period. By Susan Murcott book First Buddhist Women: Poems and Stories of Awakening page 112Jaykul72 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• The custom began only during 5th century and became spread by 8th century By edited by Anne Feldhaus, Professor of Religious Studies Anne Feldhaus Book Images of Women in Maharashtrian Literature and Religion page 173Jaykul72 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
• Sati became common after invasions from outside, during the wars among Kingdoms in India women and children were never captured as slaves. Widows preferred to become Sati than face a shameful fate. Muslim invaders captured thousands of Hindu women and sold them in the markets of the Middle East. book David Wallace goes to India by Jayesh Shah page 106
• I can provide many other sources which state that the practice of Sati became prevalent only during the middle ages from 6th century, position of women deteriorated post Central Asian invasion of India. Wikipedia is not a place to do cherry picking on selective texts for advocacy. Wikipedia articles should be written with neutral point of view. Jaykul72 (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

So, why was the POV-tag added diff? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted edits on lede section

Pharaoh of the Wizards you have reverted my edits on the lede section of the article diff citing WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE, [removing].

Psychologist Ashis Nandy says that epidemic of Sati was a result of intrusion of British colonial influence on the Indian society. Sati had become a political issue during 18th century to legitimise colonial control and regulations. The Great Bengal Famine had occurred in 1770 due to the devastation from war and exploitative tax revenue maximisation policies of the rapacious British East India Company

[and]

The British activism should be considered in the light that abolitionists of the time were concerned with promoting the Christian education of the “heathen” women as their distinctive contribution to the foreign missionary enterprise

References

On the contrary as mentioned in WP:LEDE, lede section should not only summarize the most important points but also include any prominent controversies. It is in this context that I have included alternative viewpoints to the article that, the Sati practice became more prominent as a result of British colonial influence on the Indian society. It was used as a tool to legitimise colonial control, to show that British rule was a virtue to India. British activism was more concerned with Christian education of the heathen women. Also, WP:NPOV states that, neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight. So I intend to reintroduce my edits summarizing them per WP:LEDE. Jaykul72 (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Individual British officers intervened without the backing of the British East India Company as it followed a policy of non interfence in Hindu religious affairs and there was no legislation or ban against Sati.It was only in 1798 that the British imposed a limited ban in Calcutta for the first time and only in the Bentinck era in 1829 that a full ban was done and it became a crime. The Great Bengal Famine or Goa Inquisition has little to do with Sati.It will be WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to say that Sati became an epidemic due to the British based on Ashis Nandy's opinion which is not backed by other sources and further British Policy was one of non interfence in Hindu religious affairs till Bentinck came into the picture .Further the Dharma Sabha appealed against the ban on Sati in the Privy Council on the grounds that George III Statute 37 whereby the Hindus were allowed to practice there religion without non interfence was violated but Bentinck's ban was upheld in 1832 and it was the first social reform legislation done in India.Further Sati became an issue only in 19th Century not the 18th Century.Anyway would likeother users opinion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Further another point Sati is different and Jauhar is different. Sati is an individual act was restricted to widows and took place simultaneously at the time of her husband's funeral and not a mass self-immolation like Jauhar which was done at the time of military defeat or risk of capture even unmarried girls committed Jauhar to avoid being captured by enemy soliders.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. British East India company got involved with Hindu religion when Warren Hastings promulgated the Anglo-Hindu Law in 1772. British made a false analogy between Hindu law and Muslim law, it was made with an assumption that Brahmanic and Islamic texts defined the rules of the social behaviour. Whereas, there is no single source or authority for Hindu customs. Further specifically on British East India company meddling with Sati please refer to Lata Mani, Contentious Traditions: The debate on SATI in the Colonial India, University of Minnesota Press. In page 130-132, the author mentions that the British East India Company assumed hegemony of the religious texts, assumed the Hindus were submitting to the dictates of the pundits, based on which they asked the sole opinion of a pundit on the position of Sati in Shastras. To which the pundit responded that to the best of his knowledge it is permitted for women to perform the act. The British East India Company officials misinterpreted an inference as the final authority also they modified it to state that it was encouraged in the Shastras. Christian missionaries and women abolitionists role can be found in the book by A Chatterjee, Representations of India 1740-1840, The Creation of India in the Colonial Imagination, Palgrave McMillan Publication. On page 118, the author quotes an article by an Officer of the British East India company in the New Monthly Magazine of 1820 where it is said Sati is not enjoined by the Hindu law but in fact a voluntary martyrdom. The officer goes on to state that the sati practice numbers were incorrect they would have been arrived by an extrapolation by the missionaries. Further refer Dirks, The Scandal of the Empire, page 23, where it can be seen that there was missionary pressure on British East India company on Sati practice.Jaykul72 (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference to The Great Bengal Famine of 1770 is important here as that sets the background in which the increase in Sati incidents were observed in India. This is analogous to World War II page having a background on World War I losses incurred by Germany with the Treaty of Versailles. Book by WW Hunter, Annals of Rural Bengal, page 19-27 provides the context that exploitative land tax revenue maximisation policies of the British East India Company under a Muslim Internal Minister led to the Great Bengal Famine of 1770. About 1/3rd of the population of Bengal being wiped out extreme misery, rapid increase in slavery and selling of Women and Children, people resorting to cannibalism. Three generations of Bengalis suffered due to the famine. It is in this context that sati incidents increased. Jaykul72 (talk) 05:21, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Apart from the content-issues, the lead summarizes the article; we don't add content which is not in the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Pharaoh of the Wizards I intend to update the article and then summarize it in the lede section. Joshua Jonathan, please clarify what do you mean by 'content-issues'. As per WP:PERFECT Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia perfection is not a necessity. Jaykul72 (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Sati was widespread in Bengal and Rajastan and less widespread in other parts of the country.Now Sati was widespread in Bengal before the Great Bengal Famine (1769 and 1773) which is 56 years before 1829 and almost all books on Sati do not mention the Great Bengal Famine which was 56 years.Historical Dictionary of the Bengalis By Kunal Chakrabarti, Shubhra Chakrabarti page 413 states was widespread in the 17th and 18th century and it was part due to dayabhanga system in Bengal.Sati: Historical and Phenomenological Essays By Arvind Sharma, Ajit Ray, Alaka Hejib also states it.Now this Bengal: Past and Present, Volume 76, Part 1 Calcutta Historical Society, 1957 page 101 about Sati in the 11th and 12th centuries in Bengal and about Queen Maynamati's sati.Almost all scholarly works on Sati do not mention Great Bengal Famine as a cause for Sati it was widespread in Bengal even before that.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The practice had become mainly voluntary and took place generally during times of war. In fact in the beginning of eighteenth century it had become a rare occurrence. It was only towards the end of eighteenth century and in Bengal that the rite suddenly came to acquire popularity. After about 150 years of relatively famine free existence 1770 onwards at short intervals, large scale scarcities occurred. - Ashis Nandy, Sati: A Nineteenth Century Tale of Women, Violence and Protest in the book "At the Edge of Psychology". Oxford University Press. p.3-4 Jaykul72 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Dayabhaga was applicable all over Bengal to all Hindus despite that "Over 60 percent of the 8124 recorded incidents of sati in 1829 involved upper caste Hindus living in Calcutta" By Timothy Parsons The British Imperial Century, 1815-1914: A World History Perspective page 44. Sixty three percent of the satis between 1815-1828 were committed in the Calcutta Division around Calcutta City - Late Mani, Contentious Traditions, University of Minnesota Press, page 22 Jaykul72 (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Further to the point on the assumption that hierarchical caste system was imposed on the society - Axel Michaels in Hinduism: Past and Present, Princeton University Press, page 160 mentions that, It is often assumed that Hindu society consists of many hierarchically ordered, professionally structured castes, into which the individual is born and to which he belongs all his life. However, there is no agreement about the nature, scope, and manifestations of castes. The term caste is used for so many social units that it is better to give it up altogether. The caste system is basically a feudal structure, not very different from medieval conditions in Europe. Jaykul72 (talk) 10:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with the POV added at the top of the article about the usual Hindu nationalist line: sati was a form of heroic martyrdom, a preemption of subjugation by Muslims. In fact, it has been an ancient part of Indian culture, its spur the extreme form of a patrilineal inheritance system of north India goes back to the inter imperial era of the late first millennium BCE. I will be removing this POV. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What's this?

@Aradhya Lal Sharma: your recent edits added essay-like text, with interpretations of primay sources. That's not what Wikipedia is meant for. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed the part claiming that there are many acts still committed today

Removed the part claiming that there are many acts still committed today, the article that was referenced stated the opposite of what was written in the line. Someone keeps reverting this for some reason, isn't this blatant misinformation? I tried to cite the popular theories behind the origin in the introductory paragraph and briefed about who all practiced it. If this is not a neutral point of view and must be removed please let me know so and let me know how it's to be presented better. I had cited proper proof with all my edits, and given (what I believe to be) valid reasons. Can someone please resolve this dispute?

Above (unsigned) written by Someonesomethingqwerty. David notMD (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"moved downward"

Regarding this edit, edit-summary Joshua Jonathan had said in the edit history that he will be moving this info downwards, but it seems to have gotten deleted instead. I've added it again, with some changes. As TrangaBellam pointed out that Anand. A. Yang had proposed different notions, I have added the portion that was missing prior to this, about the indication of pre-islamic sati. I've also added Romila Thapar's work as one of the many prevalent theories., I moved the info downwards, and I copy-edited it diff. Search for "additional meaning" in your diff, and you'll see that you doubled the text. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Then there should'nt be an issue with me re phrasing it as before, and adding Jogan Shankar's Postulate, now should there?

I'll leave this here, just in case if someone feels the need to question his credentials.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk • contribs) 19 july 2021 (UTC)

What makes you think that there is no problem with undoing my copy-edit? The "Spread"-section was basically a potpourry of two complementary theories, presented as opposing theories; I've grouped together the pieces of info, and streamlined the section. Shankar is still there, but without attribution. So yes, I do oppose undoing that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Early Greek Source

Moved from User talk:Joshua Jonathan

Can you please provide the source that the custom was practiced in India as far back as 300 bc, with a significant presene. Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you referencing Strabo's writings Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Or are you referencing Diodorus's observations of the Kathian tribe in Punjab? Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC) {{reflist-talk}

The lead summarizes the article; this is what the article says, with sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Ashis Nandy

This edit re-inserted the following line, attributed to Ashis Nandy:

Jogan Shankar states that sati gained more value during the period of Muslim conquests, especially with the variant of mass sati called jauhar, practiced especially among the Rajputs. This theory gains substance considering that the practice turned prevalent from 7th century onwards and declined to its elimination in 17th century to gain resurgence in Bengal in 18th century.

References

The line The practice became prevalent from 7th century onwards and declined to its elimination in 17th century to gain resurgence in Bengal in 18th century. was laready in the article, at the top; the phrase "This theory gains substance considering that" smells like WP:OR. I can't check the source, since there is no example available at Google Books, so I'll remove it again; the WP:BURDEN to show that Nandy makes this connection lies with the one who re-inserts it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright?

@Diannaa: Romila Thapar, Early India: from the Origins to 1300 AD, pdf-link to the manuscript: copyvio? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the link. Thanks for reporting.— Diannaa (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing

@Somethingsomeoneqwerty: messages like this diff diff are totally inappropriate: it's WP:CANVAS, and a WP:TENDENTIOUS misrepresentation of the interaction so far - which is also a sign of your inability to understand the edits of others, or to contribute in a constructive way. See also this warning by User:Bishonen. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Diodorus Siculus

Why is Diodorus Siculus not cited? He too described the practice of widow burning in India among a particular community called the Cathaei who lived between the Beas and Ravi rivers .--Trickipaedia (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If you had payed attention before editing, you'd have found him. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:50, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

A new source

I was wondering if Jain, Meenakshi (2016). Sati: Evangelicals, Baptist Missionaries, and the Changing Colonial Discourse. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. ISBN 9788173055522. shall be put to use. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It depends on what good use is. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Terminology section needs abridgment

Too much emphasis is put on one researcher's "model" of the three stages of sati and it is limited to Rajput women. I propose that we abridge it and add it to a relevant place without dedicating a whole section to it.--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverts

Trickipaedia, please gain a consensus for your massive changes. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you're confusing me for the notorious Pakistani Islamic nationalist User:Fowler&fowler who removed so many relevant, referenced things added by many users. Did you miss that part? He had no problem with those things for months and all of a sudden, he is angry and removes the entire section on the origin of widow sacrifice. Please be specific about your dispute. Neither of you are adding anything to the article but are quick to undo the hard work of others. Do you have anything to add? I added modern, reliable references and removed the long quote and the sole unreferenced but innocuous and obvious sentence. --Trickipaedia (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Trickipaedia, please see WP:NPA. Why are you duplicating the entire article twice? (the article repeats after the first reference section).

How does the view of colonial anthropologists (who were wrong 9 out of 10 times) matter? Why are you using 100 year old sources? Why are you using primary sources to draw tenuous link with Sati and prehistoric burial practices? TrangaBellam (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sati in Tamil Sangam Literature

In Purananuru of the Sangam literature, Kopperumpendu, wife of Bhuta Pandiyan committed Sati. Would like to add this 2-3 century AD event in Purananuru Verse 246 117.202.247.191 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)