Talk:Female infanticide in India
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Female infanticide in India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Female infanticide in India was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (April 30, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Female infanticide in India appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 15 January 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
Revert edit
@92slim: I've restored some of the material you removed because it does explicitly refer to infanticide, even if it also talks about abortion. Please be careful not to remove relevant material in the course of removing material that may be irrelevant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Roscelese: I think 92slim may have repeated the removal in September 2015. The edit summary of "trim" isn't particularly helpful and thus I have just restored it again. If I am wrong then please do revert me. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- For example, your removal included getting rid of
The Indian practice of female infanticide and of sex-selective abortion have been cited to explain in part a gender imbalance that has been reported as being increasingly distorted since the 1991 Census of India, ...
Sure, it mentions abortion but it mentions it in an entirely valid context. We cannot, for example, omit it and thus lead the reader to think that it has been cited as being entirely down to female infanticide. Your removals also screwed up some citations, leaving either cites or sources orphaned. As Roscelese says above, you need to take more care. - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- For example, your removal included getting rid of
- @92slim: I agree that they're separate topics, but if sources mention them together, we shouldn't remove information that is about infanticide just because it's also about abortion. If a source said such and such a part of the population imbalance, for example, were due to infanticide, and another part were due to abortion, then we might be justified in just mentioning the infanticide one, but we don't have enough information to separate them. Again, I do agree that they're not the same thing, but the information we have describes the joint effect of both things. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Roscelese: I agree, it's a shame that the source doesn't explain how the gender imbalance is cause by both, neither with percentages nor with numbers. Maybe research should be more through in this case because even though sex-selective abortion is illegal in China, an article that blames abortion for gender imbalances in such a big country is very controversial. We're talking about choices ultimately made by women, regardless of how unethical they may seem. I don't think it's right to compare the choice of a woman to murder - Chinese culture or politics (traditions, one-child policy, etc) could be blamed for example, for gender imbalances, but the procedures themselves shouldn't be blamed for "gender imbalance". TDLR: It's likely to be a false comparison, especially without having enough data. --92slim (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ultimately, we have to go with reliable sources. Women may choose to end a pregnancy due to various cultural biases in favor of sons, and we can and should say that if that's what reliable sources say, but those biases don't magically cause the gender imbalance on their own, and it's not "blaming women" or "blaming abortion" to say that the direct cause of the imbalance is sex-selective abortion, if that's what the sources say. Likewise, again, it's not "comparing abortion to murder" if the sources available to us don't separate out the impact of infanticide and the impact of abortion, it's just reporting what's in the sources. –Roscelese (talk] ⋅ [Special:Contributions/Roscelese|contribs) 23:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Roscelese: I agree, it's a shame that the source doesn't explain how the gender imbalance is cause by both, neither with percentages nor with numbers. Maybe research should be more through in this case because even though sex-selective abortion is illegal in China, an article that blames abortion for gender imbalances in such a big country is very controversial. We're talking about choices ultimately made by women, regardless of how unethical they may seem. I don't think it's right to compare the choice of a woman to murder - Chinese culture or politics (traditions, one-child policy, etc) could be blamed for example, for gender imbalances, but the procedures themselves shouldn't be blamed for "gender imbalance". TDLR: It's likely to be a false comparison, especially without having enough data. --92slim (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, Roscelese. And here on Wikipedia, in our role as contributors, we are not and should never be moral arbiters. If someone can't separate their own moralities from the subject, they're too close to edit it and should go contribute in some other topic area. - Sitush (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Female infanticide in India. 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/20111110085805/http://ncrb.nic.in:80/CII2010/cii-2010/Chapter%206.pdf to http://ncrb.nic.in/CII2010/cii-2010/Chapter%206.pdf
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) 19:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Female infanticide in India. 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/20131212082637/http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/16/it%E2%80%99s-a-girl-the-three-deadliest-words-in-the-world/ to http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/16/it%E2%80%99s-a-girl-the-three-deadliest-words-in-the-world/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://ncrb.nic.in/CII2010/cii-2010/Chapter%206.pdf
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) 16:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Nia Dokes Peer Review edit
The article is very detailed and has a really good break down in statistics and no spelling or grammatical errors. The religious demographics table giving a break down to the different religions in terms of the ratio to females to males is really good. Nia Dokes (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)