Talk:Sati (practice)/Archive 3

message: A number of explanations and apologias for the practice have been introduced recently by some users. Most of these are in a relevant section; Argument that sati was an act of self defence. However, on 11 Dec 2006, this sentence was in the introductory section, where different users keep changing it. 
“It was practiced most strongly where the Hindus were constantly under attack by Islamists.” This was changed from the previous, still questionable statement, that said Muslims, rather than Islamists. 
Statements as this should not be in the introduction, which have been, and should be  restricted to definitions of the term, not reasons for the practice. Furthermore, either version of this statement is factually incorrect, according to the evidence quoted so far. As far as we know from available figures, sati was practised most extensively in Bengal and Bihar in the twilight of Mughal rule there, and especially during the early stages of Company rule there.  Islamism (as the term is understood now) has not been a factor anywhere till the emergence of Salafi and Deobandi traditions in more recent times.  I have removed it. 
Imc 20:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that in a content dispute like this, proper references are key. Therefore I've reverted to the last verison where the references weren't completely stuffed up and unviewable. There's a small number of useful changes since then that have been drowned out in the edit war, but I think on balance it would be better to add them in rather than try to re-fix the reference snarlup. Orpheus 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying 'of course' does not make it an argument. Islamism has a common meaning in English that is not the one you use, and is in any case a controversial term that should not be used unnecessarily. Please discuss here, in a civil and reasonable manner, and get agreement here before making changes. Imc 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I happen to agree with you on the specific reversions in question, you should be aware that you sound exactly like the person you are criticising. Wikipedia isn't the place to stick up for whatever group you identify with. That's the whole point of the NPOV policy. Don't turn it into a cultural battleground - there's enough of those in the world already. Orpheus 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allow me to clarify.  I'm not attempting to support either Muslims or Hindus or any particular viewpoint either group may have.  From what I've read on the subject the opinions expressed in the edits that I reverted are not supported within the academic community.  That being said, should any user be able to find reliable sources that disagree with what I know of the subject, I have no problem with them being added to the article.  My problems with the user in question were that - 1) they made highly controversial, unsupported (emphasis on "unsupported") claims and 2) the manner in which these claims were made came across as racist, which is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy.   But again, I've no qualms with similar information appearing so long as it is well supported by reliable sources, and is framed in a non-racist manner. Draglikepull 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologias

message: For the record, I'm listing here the major stuff added by Maleabroad or other IPs, the last being 136.159.32.180. I include reasons for its removal from the article, some of it repeated. Note that with the repeated additions, deletions, and reversions here, some of the material added by Maleabroad has become confused, so that he is now removing stuff that he himself as added, and the article is in need of revision. Some references may have been lost in this mess. 
It was practiced most strongly where the Hindus were constantly under attack by Islamists.
No justification for this. See above, it was practised most strongly in Bengal under British rule. It was practised for the longest period in Rajasthan, where it started before Muslim invasions, and carried on despite there being no Muslim rule for  long periods. Compare the upper Gangetic plain, and the Indus Valley, both of which were under Muslim rule for much longer periods, but where the practice was little known. 
The Rajputs soon came to know the way of the Islamists. If it appeared that the battle could not be won, then they themselves killed their women and children, Masada style, and then went to fight with the Muslims until death. In many cases, the Rajput women took their own lives by taking poison and then jumping into a deep fiery pit. This was called the Jauhar
Vrat or "oath of fire". The men went out to fight and died in battle.''
Irrelevant. The website is that of Rohit Vyasmaan, and supports Bajrang Dal.
Sati was mainly prevalent among kshatriya families to protect the dignity of their womenfolk i.e to prevent sexual harassment by invaders of women whose husbands were killed in war.http://www.anthropology-online.de/Aga05/0283.html It reached its peak during the Islamic conquests of Indiahttp://www.anthropology-online.de/Aga05/0283.html
The section is untrue, dishonest, and wrongly cited, as the quoted reference does not state what is said above.
The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. The Islamic historians and scholars have recorded with great glee and pride of the slaughters of Hindus, forced conversions, abduction of Hindu women and children to slave markets and the destruction of temples carried out by the warriors of Islam during 800 to 1700. Millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period. The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage by Will Durrant
Hindu women were also raped and forcibly converted many times in Hindu history as they still are today.    
Daniel Pipes writes that one reason for the invasion (jehad) of India (not only for conversion) was to make slave of infidel (kafir) women:  
15. Hajjaj apointed Muhammad s/o Harun. At this time occurred the event of some pirated kidnapped some women going from Ceylon to Arabia which the Muslims justify as the cause for the next invasion of Debal, the capital of King Dahir.Chapter II -- Futuhu-l Buldan of Ahmad ibn Yahya Ibn Jabir Al Buldan  
When the first Indian king, Raja Dahir was defeated, his daughters suffered a fate worse than their father at the hands of the Arabs.
All of this section is irrelevant to the article. The last reference is untrue; the article mentions a Raja Daher, but  has nothing about his daughters. 
However these attempts were created so that Hindu widows can become the property of the Mughal realm. In the Mughal times, Islamsits captured Hindu women, raped them and kept them as slaves. Hindus justified sati on these grounds. Akbar himself had over 1,000 wives. Aurangzeb was known to be the most notorious and widows (especially those under his reign) feared him. Initial Muslim Invasions And Of Later Regimes Of Sultans And Badshahs  So now with these laws, not only were the Mughals banning the practice but depriving Hindu women to die with honor. The historian, Upendra Thakur records the persecution of Hindus and Buddhists:   
[Resistors] were put to death and women made captives. The Jizya was exacted with special care. [Hindus] were required to feed Muslim travellers for three days and three nights. [Sindhi Culture by U.T. Thakkur, Univ. of Bombay Publications, 1959]}}''
Irrelevant to the article. 
The reason why a few instances do occur nowadays is not because of fears of kidnapping by Islamists but because many wives cannot live emotionally without the husband and so there have been instances where sati practice has occurred.
This is not what it says in the quoted article. 
Imc 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that in a content dispute like this, proper references are key. Therefore I've reverted to the last verison where the references weren't completely stuffed up and unviewable. There's a small number of useful changes since then that have been drowned out in the edit war, but I think on balance it would be better to add them in rather than try to re-fix the reference snarlup. Orpheus 00:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Saying 'of course' does not make it an argument. Islamism has a common meaning in English that is not the one you use, and is in any case a controversial term that should not be used unnecessarily. Please discuss here, in a civil and reasonable manner, and get agreement here before making changes. Imc 17:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Although I happen to agree with you on the specific reversions in question, you should be aware that you sound exactly like the person you are criticising. Wikipedia isn't the place to stick up for whatever group you identify with. That's the whole point of the NPOV policy. Don't turn it into a cultural battleground - there's enough of those in the world already. Orpheus 13:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allow me to clarify.  I'm not attempting to support either Muslims or Hindus or any particular viewpoint either group may have.  From what I've read on the subject the opinions expressed in the edits that I reverted are not supported within the academic community.  That being said, should any user be able to find reliable sources that disagree with what I know of the subject, I have no problem with them being added to the article.  My problems with the user in question were that - 1) they made highly controversial, unsupported (emphasis on "unsupported") claims and 2) the manner in which these claims were made came across as racist, which is clearly a violation of Wikipedia policy.   But again, I've no qualms with similar information appearing so long as it is well supported by reliable sources, and is framed in a non-racist manner. Draglikepull 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of content 17 Jan 2007

message: Why develop a custom that forces widowed women to ether commit suicide or live the rest of their lives as outcast, begging nuns!?  You can’t just blame myths or religious texts!  According to Steven Pinker culture is a mean to get a better life.  Consequently, this tradition must originally have served a function.  The Ancient Greek explanation is probably mere guesswork as most of their “scientific” writings.  Anyone who have an idea?
2007-03-04  Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.114.161.209 (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The origin of sati 

message: Is "The Straight Dope" (with its rather facetious tone and lack of any references) really a suitable site to link to? Surely we can do better that that???
That site really isn't very helpful.Leafever (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations