Jump to content

Talk:Female infanticide in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

[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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Selective stopping" can't skew sex ratios

[edit]

Why does the article give "selective stopping of family size once a male is born" as a reason for skewed sex ratios? It is literally impossible for this, or indeed, any particular pattern of choices to have or not have an additional child in particular situations, to affect sex ratios of a society. It can change the chance of an individual family having more sons than daughters, but not the total number of each per 100 children. The many families with slightly more sons than daughters are balanced by a few who, following that strategy, end up with many many daughters before a son.


The claim that this can affect sex ratios is equivalent to the claim that one can go into a casino with booths offering even odds on coin flips, and consistently make money by moving to a new booth whenever you're ahead. It's frankly absurd. 166.198.25.78 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]