Talk:Sati (practice)/Archive 4

Why is it called Sati?

Sati was the consort of lord Siva, and she set herself alight with mystic yoga, it had nothing to do with a funeral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.245.115 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

shrine image

The shrine image is great. It would be helpful to give a bit more context for the sentence "The palm prints are typical"; why are they typical? For all shrines, or just shrines for sati? --Lquilter (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

For shrines dedicated to sati. Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

references

The references section(s) are a mess -- there are three individual sets of refs; one that is automatically generated with {{reflist}}; a few references added below that; and a lot of numbered references that are manual. Before I start cleaning this up and putting it all into {{reflist}} format, I thought I would check to see if anyone else is working on this or has some other scheme in mind. --Lquilter (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am mostly complete with consolidating the reference formats. In the process, I found some references where the original text had been deleted, but not the reference. There's been a lot of vandalism to this article over time so I'm adding these here to make sure we don't miss things we want to have in the article. --Lquilter (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I removed this orphaned cite: pp351, Moore, Barrington. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967. which accompanied this text:

    Noted political scientist Barrington Moore mentions the practice of sati in his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Moore says of sati that "Such a custom might indeed test the beliefs of even the most firm present-day believer in the equal worth of all cultures"{{ref|bmoore}}. Moore goes on to state that the British suppression of sati and other religious and cultural activities was a factor in the Mutiny of 1857.

    #{{note|bmoore}}pp351, Moore, Barrington. Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press, 1967

    The text was added 2006/3/22 by Xijjix diff; and deleted 2006/10/28 by Imc diff who stated that there were more prominent critics, e.g., Gandhi.
  • Another set of two orphaned cites had the accompanying text removed sometime around December 2005, but I cannot find the specific diff -- it was perhaps removed from the edit history.

    The view of sati as a core practice of Hinduism, including the idea that it was compulsory, continues to be held and disseminated by various groups today, some within India, and many in the rest of the world. In recent years in Poland, criticisms and attacks by Catholics on the Hare Krishna movement in that country included charges that they planned to introduce sati into Europe{{ref|Catholics}}. The practice is often quoted as the ultimate example of the subjection of women, and this sometimes provokes resentment and criticisms from Hindus and Indians.{{ref|resentment}} <!-- need a section on modern feminist criticisms and attitudes.-->

    #{{note|Catholics}}Defending Religious Freedom in Poland: Polish Catholics Persecute Krishna Worshippers by Ella Serwin and Magdalena Mola on the Poland (VNN). The Vaishnava News Network (VNN) is an independent network of collaborating Vaishnavas worldwide providing the world Vaishnava community with news and forums of communication.

    #{{note|resentment}}Women and Hinduism in U.S. Textbooks by: David Freedholm on Feb 5 2003 on his blog site. backup site

    The original text was in the document prior to December 6, 2005 (2005/12/4 version); see 2003-Dec 2005 version), and somehow the text was removed in December 2005 (see diff). Since there's no explanation of the deletion, I suggest this text (or a modified rewrite of it) be put back in. It includes the point that the practice is highlighted as an extreme horror and that the perception that it was a "core practice" of Hinduism is offensive to Hindus; that source of conflict and tension in fact helps to explain some of the edit warring that happened in December 2006, and is not presently addressed in the article. I'm not sure about the Poland material -- it seems a bit singular -- but I propose something like:

The idea that sati was a core practice of Hinduism or widespread throughout India sometimes provokes resentment and criticism from Hindus and Indians.[cite Freedholm].

We could combine it with the previously requested, and never addressed, point about feminism, e.g.,

Feminist critiques of the practice have increased awareness of it, and exacerbated those tensions.[need cite].

And perhaps add a sentence to address the controversial revisionist scholarship and ideas that led to the edit wars of Dec 2006 -- this would be hard to write in an accurate and NPOV way, but maybe something like,

Tensions around the historical genesis of the practice have led some revisionist scholars to deny Hindu historical ties to the practice, to tie it to waves of invaders, or to challenge modern accounts of alleged incidents of sati.

My thinking is that the last sentence, if worded correctly, could help stave off efforts to add this material to the article in a non-neutral way, by acknowledging the substance of the issues in a neutral way.

Thoughts on any of these sentences, or the older material? --Lquilter (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on this article LQuilter. As you have probably noticed, my own PoV must have crept into much of the current article. My comments on your detailed suggestions;

• . On the Barrington Moore quote, that I removed; I think that first, it contributes little to the article. Second, as another condemning view from a westerner, it is both superfluous and is the sort of thing that provokes edit wars from the likes of user Maleabroad. As I said before, there are numerous condemnatory Indian views that have not been quoted. Regarding his statement that it was a factor in the Indian rebellion of 1857, there are many primary sources in British histories of the rebellion suggesting this. This claim of it being a cause of the rebellion should be taken with a large dose of salt; the rebellion took place in areas of northern India where sati was little known, the rebellion was part led by the Muslim, and to a lesser extent the Hindu ruling classes of those regions, and the rebellion did not extend into areas where sati was most prevalent.
• On the section starting The view of sati as a core practice of Hinduism, including the idea that it was compulsory,..., yes I think that should be reinstated in some form. Your suggestions seem fine to me.

Imc (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC).

• Hi Imc -- You've been doing great work, and I have no criticisms of it. I have no disagreement on the Barrington Moore quote; I liked it, but thought your comment was completely reasonable. I put it here for transparency -- there's been so much vandalism (that you have been primarily responsible for reverting over the past couple of years) that I'm sure it's been very hard to keep everything straight. It was just an orphaned reference, so I wanted to make sure we noted why we were taking it out. On the second material about "The view of sati as a core practice of Hinduism...", glad to hear that works for you; let's let it sit for a couple of days & see if any other regular contributor/policers have opinions (although you've been the main one). Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that Barrington Moore was one of the leading lights of political science, and the book in question is one of the most heavily cited in political science academia. I don't think that there's a good enough reason to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 12:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless I see a good reason why not here in a bit, I'll restore it. Relata refero (talk) 12:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In or out, both are fine with me. --Lquilter (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The origin of sati

Why develop a custom that forces widowed women to either 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?

2008-02-16 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.19.152 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Like female circumcision? Poisoned coolaid? Maybe some religious practices and traditions spring out of mere stupidity.--IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Female genital cutting does serve a known function. However, it exists quite independent of religion. Some people may rationalize it with religion but these individuals are ignorant of the fact that not all members of their own religion practice it. I have never heard about poisoned Kool-Aid before and see no connection to any religion at all.

2010-05-15 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

See: Jonestown. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The most likely explanation for the origin of the practice of Sati is to prevent wealthy wives poisoning their (often elderly) husbands leaving the woman rich, free, and available to other (perhaps more attractive) men. Most of these sort of traditions originate amongst the wealthy members of societies, and requiring that any widow be expected to sit on her late husband's funeral pyre and be burnt to death ought to at least have some effect in making the wife (or wives) ensure the husband lives to be a ripe old age, and is not replaced by a younger lover likely to be attracted by the widow's (subsequent) great wealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.81.192 (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlikely. Hindu widows were never allowed to remarry after the husband's death. The Manusmriti compelled them to choose between a life of chastity or committing sati. Hindu widowers, otoh, could remarry easily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.184.95 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

On SR Bakshi

It's been brought to my attention that SR Bakshi is a professional historian and was formerly associated with the ICHR. There is no indication that he was a fellow there - in fact the implication is that he worked there - and ICHR is in any case a political rather than scholarly organisation as has been well documented. That being said, I've had a look at the appropriate paragraph in the book, which clearly attributes purdah to Muslim kidnapping, child marriage to Muslim rape, and Sati to Muslim liberties with widows. I think its fairly representative of a certain sort of ahistorical view of these events (even up to the bit that claims the shastras were rewritten in the 13th century to retrospectively legitimise child marriage because of Muslim savagery) and so, as long as the passage quoting it is appropriately written, suppose there' no harm in including it. Relata refero (talk) 12:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

not only Sati, child marriage & purdah, the Muslims also brought non-vegetarian food (in particular, Pulao, Kabab & Kofta!), drinking and gambling to the Hindus.(p. 7) A 1500 page advanced history, with nary a reference in sight, makes for interesting reading. Doldrums (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Similar texts to the newly added ones blaming Islam have been in the article before and have been removed. I've moved it to the origins section. Imc (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Sati is feature prominently in episode 75 of Highlander the Series titled "Wrath of Kali". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.130 (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cite notices

A number of cite notices have been added to the article over time. Several deletions were made resulting from this, including [1]. I've reverted two of these since they are referenced elsewhere in the same section. Another deletion, at [2] has multiple sources, including some quoted in the article; however these assertions in the removed section mostly cannot be said to have academic credibility, so I'm leaving this out for others to judge the value of.

If cite notices are put into old text that was composed before the current practice of providing inline citations for every remotely contentious fact, then surely it is advisable to do research first to ensure that the removal of material is justified.

12:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of word prevalence for Sati

I have strenous objection to the use of the word prevalence as it makes it seem that the practice is ongoing and was at one time "prevalent." there is simply NO evidence of that. Murders of American women by their spouses are far greater, and yet we do not claim that as an American "tradition." Only SOME Hindu communities practiced this, and it was never practiced outside of those communities. Further, as for Roop, there is too much evidence to indicate that this was coercian on the part of her husband's family. She may have been burned but it hardly relates to Sati. It, in fact, relates more to the modern recent phenomenon of dowry-murder, also not an Indian or Hindu "custom."

To think that every time a woman in India is burned is Sati is akin to saying that anytime a woman is burned in Europe it is a revival of witch burning.

See Narayan for a comprehensive and scholarly discussion of Sati.

````washnahiotha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washnahiotha (talk • contribs) 18:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The word 'prevalence' does not mean it is common, unless confused with 'prevalent'. See for instance the article Prevalance for its epidemiological use. However, I've changed it to incidence. Imc (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The racist comparison with the murder of American women by their wives is a false analogy. Murder in the West is not a "matter of honour and pride", but a crime. The problem with Sati is that it has the "sanction" of culture, even though is a form of human sacrifice, barbaric and inhuman. Attempts to glorify Sati (itself a criminal offense in India, incidentally) do nothing to alter that fact that such savagery is out-dated by at least 3,000 years. By all means live in the stone age, but the rest of the world has moved on.124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here (124.197.15.138). What is being asked is if it has "social sanction." British missionaries liked to portray it as so, but they also advocated the Juggernaut myth, that Indians were thrown under the temple wheels as sacrifices, that this had social "sanction" and therefore Hinduism is bad. The point above your post is valid in that it addresses whether or not sati actually had social sanction or was a fringe practice that came about through a number of complex social factors. 24.84.37.231 (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sati Rate is Incorrect?

Hi,

I was looking for some more precise records concerning the rate of sati, and came across this article "Central Sati Act - An Analysis" written by Maja Daruwala (http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Gender/sati.htm). What's interesting, is it says "Perhaps Bentinck was spurred on to Legislation by the unacceptable rise in Satis in his province, Bengal. In the 10 years between 1815 and 1825, the figure had doubled to 639 deaths by burning" which is quite different from the values quoted in this wiki article (although they include Bihar, etc). I think it's a good idea to put in. 24.84.37.231 (talk) 04:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems you are correct. Would you care to add this text into the article? Imc (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Madhavacharya

Removed both references to Madhvacharya as information presented was patently incorrect (he was never the minister of any empire, more so of any which were established 100 years after him). Not even Shastri's book mentions Madhvacharya as a chief proponent of Sati - these inclusions seem to have come from sectarian viewpoints - the laudatory inclusion of "Sri Vaishnavites" is especially suspect as it quotes a newspaper article from 1999, and similar sources can be found for virtually every sect in India from random sources.

-- Jayaram Uparna (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)upparna

Above comment moved from the 'Cite notices' section, above into new section, by user Imc or 16 May 2010

Your comment confuses Madhavacharya (which is the name in the article) with Madhvacharya, an unconnected figure. I have restored the text in the article. The sources are clear enough, but I will add detailed references since they can be found online. What Sri Vaishnava has to do with any of this is unclear. Imc (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Folklore

This discussion is continued here after the request of User_talk:Imc, the beginning of this discussion can be found at my talk_page. This discussion was started after my My Addition to this article. The Basic problem is where to place this content. I want to place it on LEDE. I was asked by User_talk:Imc to explain that "the caste theory is generally accepted as the reason for the practice".

I have seen few discussion on this article_talk_page like The_origin_of_sati, which could not conclude anything, they might be in requisite of My Addition. But the basic fact we can find in this content is that it does not explain the time of origin, but it explains the purpose of origin and some similar customs intended for the same purpose.

In few more sections we can find the discussions about purpose of this custom. We can see that everyone have said that it is related to some thing divine with out any materialistic objective. In Sati_(practice)#Justifications_and_criticisms section it states that "It was deemed an act of peerless piety, and was said to purge the couple of all accumulated sin, guarantee their salvation and ensure their reunion in the afterlife" What it surprises me is why this practice was not done with man, why only women? "Because only men had the upper hand in society" and moreover he had the option of second marriage that too Girl marriage(Child Marriage similar purpose custom).

As stated in [Vishnu Smriti] "preserving her chastity(strict Widowhood similar purpose custom)" or Sati are the two options for women after her husbands death, but mostly Sati was encouraged. As being(or)following strict widowhood is more bigger task than Sati which will burn her at once.

Whatever the origin might be, these three practices Sati, strict Widowhood and Girl Marriages are the customs intended to achieve similar purpose that is "ENDOGAMY" of castes. The excess(or)surplus widow and widower in a society is a real threat to Endogamy of caste system. Only this evil traditions ensured the Endogamy of Castes--Ranjithsutari (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

For ease of reference, the original text added by Ranjithsutari to the article was;

Sati, Enforced Widowhood and Girl Marriage are customs that were primarily intended to solve the problem of the surplus woman and surplus man (widower) in a caste and to maintain its Endogamy.

This is still in the article, though I've slightly modified and moved it to one of the body sections. My opinion is that while there is now at least one reference that says caste endogamy is a reason for the custom, I don't see that it is universally or widely accepted as the prime reason for the custom. Hence while it should be in the article, it should not be included in the lead, which is for a summary of what is known and accepted. Imc (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ps. it might be better to title this section something other than 'Folklore'; how about 'Caste endogamy'? Imc (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Few more references . As per WP:LEDE, to enter this controversial content in to the lead, anyone has to provide proper WP:reliable sources. I think arguing about its universal acceptance is not of any use. With regards--Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Editor User:Anthonzi, I hope you can find enough reference to keep this important point in the lead. In any references, it is not stated that it is a theory or imagination. If you think so, then you better provide any references. If you consider this statement as minority view point, then you should show reference and explain how it differ from majority view. I consider it as the only viewpoint for which I have given enough references. -Ranjithsutari (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ranjithsutari, neither scholarly use nor Wikipedia use a count of collected references to decide what is 'majority view'. The material you have contributed is provided at a suitable place in the article. WP:LEAD says that the lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article. It also says Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, You have provided a single sentence of significant information complete with references, which you put into the lead. This is inappropriate; it belongs in the body, as per WP: LEAD. Further, none of the references you have provided are online, so it is difficult to check and make judgements on otherwise. Hence they could do with some expansion, and if you have access to these works, it would be useful if you could write this. Also, if online references are available, can you provide these. Thanks. Imc (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Opposed by Tantrics

From page 94 of the book Sati: historical and phenomenological essays by Arvind Sharma:

And according to the Tantra writers anyone responsible for burning a woman-an embodiment of divinity- on the pyre is bound for hell, vide A. S Altekar, op. cit., pp 124-5, wherein the Sanskrit originals are also quoted. A. L. Basham also acknowledges that sati "was condemned by the humane poet Bana, in the 7th century, and by the Tantric sects" (The Wonder that was India, pp. 188).

Hokie Tech (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Marxist "post-colonial" anti-Western bias

In the article, under the "non-Hindu" section, Muhammad bin Tughluq the Sultan of Delhi is portrayed as some sort of noble and enlightened man for opposing the "barbaric" practice of Sati. You can almost hear Chomsky or some other critical theory professor chiding in, "Islam is quite tolerent", proto-champions of "womens lib" against "patriarchy", etc. Yet the mention of the Portuguese and British opposing the exact same thing, is filled with Marxist anti-Western propaganda, as if its some evil imperialist conspiracy to oppose burning widows a live. Why different standards for a Muslim Turk and a European Christian on the exact same issue? - 90.215.164.30 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One short sentence about bin Tughluq, cited to Web Journal of Current Legal Issues. Rather weak sourcing for history, but it is prima facie an academic article. If you can find a different view in another academic source, add it. Gayatri Spivak is mentioned in the same para - she is a well known academic who takes a marked "post-colonial studies" stance. Again, could be complemented by a different view if one can be found. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch?

Isn't this a quite painful way to die? --89.204.153.194 (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read that it isn't that painful as the nerves are destroyed from the extreme heat quite quickly. BodvarBjarki (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Compulsion

The "compulsion" section of this article seems to be stepping beyond the bounds of the source provided and may be relying on original research:

"Sati was supposed to be voluntary, but it is known that it has often been forced. Setting aside the issue of social pressures, many accounts exist of women being physically forced to their deaths. Pictorial and narrative accounts often describe the widow being seated on the unlit pyre, and then tied or otherwise restrained to keep her from fleeing after the fire was lit. Some accounts state that the woman was drugged. One account describes men using long poles to prevent a woman from fleeing the flames."

This paints the picture that, somewhere in the grey area between as few as "many" and as often as "most", Sati was being forced. Whether or not this was the case, the source provided just doesn't support that. Hargrave suggests that "there were surely cases involving the use of force, drugs, or restraints." but that statement is only offered as hearsay and only one one documented case of forced Sati is provided, An Account of a Woman burning herself, By an Officer. In this account, an officer describes a girl who appears to be drugged (although others in attendance claim she is not) who lays herself on the pyre and is then restrained with ropes "that however great her resolution might be, it was very possible, when the fire was first kindled, she might attempt to rise, which the ropes would hinder her from doing."

Given that this is the only cited example, I am going to soften up this section of the article. Please understand that I am only removing objectionable material until it can be cited. If you are aware of any other sources related to forced Sati, please add them. Thanks for your understanding. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Muslim Period

OccultZone, there are several problems with your edits to the "Muslim Period" section and the introduction.

First of all, even if the information was true, why would it be in the lead section? According to WP:LEAD:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects

Do you actually consider what is written as a summary of its most important aspects? Why are you singling out this piece of information? Why not include some information regarding sati in modern times or under British (or European) rule?

The second problem is the accuracy of this statement and the passages in the "Muslim period". You wrote:

But the practice began most notably during the Muslim invasions of India

According to the "Origin" section (as well as the mainstream viewpoint) sati began hundreds of years before there were any Muslims! As I said before, you are giving undue weight to a fringe theory that directly contradicts verified information in the article itself.

Then there is the third problem. You wrote:

During the Islamic conquest of Indian subcontinent, sati practice began, as rapes and abductions were commonly carried out by the Islamic invaders. Other atrocities by Islamic invaders included the enslavement, Harem, etc.

I honestly don't understand how you see this written from a NPOV. Some of these Kingdoms and Sultanates had dynasties that lasted hundreds of years. At what point are they not considered invaders? And why "Islamic invaders"? You do not call British expansion into India "Christian invaders". You do not call Crusader conquests "Christian invaders". And using the word atrocity is passing judgment, which is not your job as a Wikipedia editor. Do you see the lack of a NPOV now? Please refer to WP:NPOV.

And finally, for whatever reason you added this:

Other atrocities by Islamic invaders included the enslavement, Harem, etc.

This is an article about sati. What is the relevance of this statement in regards to this article? The addition of this statement leads me to believe that you may have other motives. But I'd like to read your reply first. Jordan schlansky (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Who cares about Christian crusades over here? British would force convert but not all of them, in fact some of the british had instead installed the law against force conversion. And Just because you don't like the sourced material. How it's pushing NPOV? Is there any denial about the atrocities of muslim invaders? There isn't.

Including "enslavement, harem, etc" means that the women would find it easier to commit this ritual suicide, only from preventing themselves to be disgraced for life, as per multiple sources. OccultZone (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OccultZone, I'm assuming that you're lack of response to the other points that I made means that you agree with those reverts. As for the points that you did respond to:

I brought up the Crusaders and the British to show the bias in the term "Islamic invader". The British were (and still are) Christian, and they invaded India. Yet you do not call them "Christian invaders" because that shows an obvious lack of neutrality. The same goes for "Islamic invader". You are obviously using it in a pejorative way.

The sources given are not reliable since they state that sati began in the Muslim period, when the accepted viewpoint is that started hundreds of years before that. Even the article states that!

Regarding the "enslavement, harem, etc", it was worded poorly so I didn't even realize why it was included. It should have been combined with the previous sentence. Of course, it doesn't really matter since it doesn't belong in this article in the first place (See above for reason why). Jordan schlansky (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Bias? The source writes these muslims as "islamic invaders", crusades has to do nothing with Sati Practice. No sources says that "british were christian invaders" either. So why you are getting emotional about something which has been already happened?

Other than I DON'T LIKE IT, i really can't see any reason for opposing the information.. How cheaply you are claiming that the sources "are not reliable" is just one evidence, other than that your edit warring, sock puppetting, which has been reported already. OccultZone (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The references are unreliable because they contain false information (They claim sati began in the Muslim period). The choice of words is an entirely separate, and at this point, irrelevant matter. And you're welcome to report me as much as you want. You're accusations are baseless. But I'm not surprised because you can't respond to my legitimate reasons for reverting, so you resort to desperate tactics. OccultZone, please refer to WP:WINNING. Jordan schlansky (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Also OccultZone, you said:

The source writes these muslims as "islamic invaders"

So you think that since it's written like that in the source, it should stay like that in the article. If that is how you feel, then why did you replace the word "began" with "revived" even though all of the sources used the word "began"? Jordan schlansky (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the sources are unreliable. It's that they are completely misrepresented, to say the diametric opposite of what they actually say. Take any potential sources to WP:RSN and then if they are judged reliable, summarise them accurately. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I request everyone to stop giving attention to alleged sock puppet for now. Newly born vandalizer like this user actually believes in page ownership due to some personal reasons. OccultZone (talk) 09:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• A Place at the Multicultural Table: The Development of an American Hinduism p=171, says Hindu revisionists have said that Sati began, that is a pure misrepresentation of the source as it was used to support "During the Islamic conquest of Indian subcontinent, sati practice began, as rapes and abductions were commonly carried out by the Islamic invaders." I see no reason to bother checking the rest, one is enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's one source which is not denying the allegation, not saying "revitionist" to all but later adding the view of "indian historians", rest that are supporting, such as:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=JlgAkHqGyMoC&pg=PA9&dq=sati+islamic+invasion&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FwXEUp7bNoG5iQeUhoHoDA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=sati%20islamic%20invasion%20rape&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=9mvzKWt50JsC&pg=PA358&dq=

http://books.google.com/books?id=Mr_eYjoVjz8C&pg=PA253&dq=sati#v=onepage&q=sati&f=false

Page 54 of http://books.google.com/books?id=IzrkAAAAMAAJ

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ubBPAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA88&dq=sati

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=JlgAkHqGyMoC&pg=PA9&dq=sati

Thanks OccultZone (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have looked at two of those sources, neither say Sati began when the Muslim conquest began. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The original term was "revived", not "began". Which was disputed by other user, so until, the last 5 days, were using the term "revived". OccultZone (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Then why did you write "It began"? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Jordan schlansky asserted "Secondly, all of the references claim that sati began in this period, not revived", I added "begin", agreed though, it was incorrect, "revived" being better word. OccultZone (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Protection

I've just fully protected this article due to the ongoing edit warring. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page instead of continually reverting. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Before it's late, I request Mark Arsten to revert the last vandalism. I would like to remind Mark Arsten, that he had once reverted same kind of vandalism from this page, which can be seen, [link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sati_(practice)&diff=579546096&oldid=579546075]. OccultZone (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't realized I had made that edit before. I wonder if that makes me WP:INVOLVED here? In any case, I think you should use an edit request to ask an admin to change versions. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten, I think you are only reverting the vandalism back. It's not really Involvement, considering that other user is hardly 2 days old account and clear SPA(single purpose acc). OccultZone (talk) 03:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any reversion to a state were sources are clearly misrepresented. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not all sources were misrepresented, more sources have been provided. OccultZone (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

Itsmejudith should have notified here when he took the issue to noticeboard, nonetheless, I am reminding here for rest of editors, related with this page. OccultZone (talk) 13:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I should have notified this page. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

I've (boldly) redone the lead to

1. remove some references as being unneeded or being adequately cited in the body of the article, (I've retained the very on-topic references, Mani (1986,1987), Sangari (1981) and Zechenter (1997) in the list of references.)
2. remove the claim that Hindu scripture categorically forbids Sati, this is a disputed statement as described later in the article, (The claim is not supported by one of the references given (Subrata Das Gupta), the reliability of the other two is suspect.)
3. move the description of the different usages of the term to its own section and
4. retain a bare-bones summary of the article, which hopefully can be improved as the rest of the article is cleaned up.

Canto55 (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Essentially, all those edits were uncalled, and not needed, since it's not a forum like, "i oppose it, remove it". Next time open a section here, before adding REDFLAG. OccultZone (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged statements in the lead and in the 'Muslim period' section that either fail verification or are based on unreliable sources. Let me elaborate my reasons for this below. To begin with:

The categorical statement that "Hindu scriptures forbid sati" is based on two books written by a retired police officer, Trinath Mishra, that appear to have received no academic notice, let alone review, at all. These are unacceptable sources for the very strong claim made, which is actually disputed. As I've pointed out above, the mixed support and opposition for sati in Hindu scripture is described in the body of the article based on several academic sources ([Doniger, 2009], [Shastri, 1960]). In fact, [Hawley, 1994] (page 10) says that the Shankaracharyas of Puri and Kanchi, who enjoy considerable authority on Hindu scriptural interpretation, differ on this issue! There's no reason for this retired police officer's views to completely eclipse all opposing viewpoints. The third source, [Das Gupta, 2003], does not support the claim that sati is forbidden in the Kali yuga. It actually describes Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar's attempt to find support for widow re-marriage in the scriptures, and that he concludes that since sati is illegal (under *secular* law) and that *asceticism* is impossible in the Kali-yuga, re-marriage is the only reasonable option for a widow! Hope that explains my earlier edit, and following its reversion, my tagging. I expect to see a substantial response to the points I've raised. Canto55 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Mishra is not reliable for the statements that are made. He might be reliable for statements relating to his law-enforcement role regarding sati but nothing more than that. I'll go through the rest of the lead in a few hours' time but one obvious starting point is WP:LEAD itself: there is no need for citations in the lead section for any points that are not controversial and are cited in the body. Since the lead is supposed to summarise the body, that should pretty much rule out everything that presently exists unless we have reliable sources with opposing points of view. Even then, it is often possible to avoid actually citing them at the top. - Sitush (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, replaced with seemingly better sources, [3], for more. OccultZone (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope! Once again the cited sources do not back up the claims made. I can find no such claim in [Pechilis, 2004] (page 104 or elsewhere). [Sharma, 1987] says, like [Das Gupta, 2003] above, that during the Hindu reform movement, some reformists looked for scriptural opposition to sati to bolster their fight against the prevailing custom, which held that sati is permissible. You're again reporting an interpretation championed by by one group of people at a particular point in time as being held by all Hindus at all times, something that is contradicted by the sources you're using as well as other sources in the body of the article. Rather than repeatedly tagging a unsourced claim, can we remove the claim from the article until we figure out whether it is source-able or not?

Let me also say that you've reverted a whole bunch of changes I've made, with no explanation as to why. Can I ask you to reinstate the changes (some of which, like creating the 'Etymology and usage' section, are presumably uncontrovertial) that you've no issue with or substantiate your problem with those edits here so we can work on it. Canto55 (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that there is a voluntary moratorium on changes to the article until the issues are resolved here on the talk page. Failing that, I may seek full-protection. I can't see page 93 of the Arvind Sharma/SUNY book that is tagged as "not in source". Can anyone oblige with the text? - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct, the tag is wrong. OccultZone (talk) 11:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked you to desist from further changes, you reply to my request and make a further change. Please stick to replies only until there is consensus for changes to be made. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind a moratorium on article-edits but if we go that route, then I think a content-dispute tag on the article is called for. As it stands, for instance, the very next line in the lead, that sati was most notable during the Islamic invasions, is again not supported by its source. What I don't fancy is the idea of leaving known bugs in the article without atleast a notice to readers. Canto55 (talk) 13:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Sitush. This is the text. (After describing initiatives in favour of women's rights by British authorities and Indian reformers)... "Thus, by the late nineteenth century, issues regarding women were addressed. Hindu leaders overcame centuries of custom and found ways to correct the situation. Rationale for change was often sought in the authority of the Vedas; if a custom such as child marriage or sati was not found in the Rg-Veda, it was argued that it was a later accretion and should be cast out for not belonging to true or revealed Hinduism. Another hermeneutical tactic was to argue that this custom was not to be practised in the Kali Yuga, the present age. Yet another tactic... Exegetical and dialectical agility to foster change became more important than custom. Hinduism, as a crossroad of religions, had learned to survive by borrowing... "

So you see, the text is not at all saying "sati is not to be practised in the Kali Yuga". It says that after sati was banned, Hindu theologians went back to the scriptures and found arguments that were consistent with it being banned. I think this is a good source, but not for the lead, because the argument is too complex. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep. We are misrepresenting the Sharma source in the lead - that one needs resolving in the body and then summarising correctly in the lead. So, too, does the [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pNCJyWOq-

M4C&lpg=PP1&dq=isbn%3A9780195145380&pg=PA104#v=onepage&q&f=false Pechilis] citation as that also doesn't support the statement. - Sitush (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sharma's source is probably not misrepresented, you should check again, if it is, we can use mishra instead [http://books.google.com/books?ei=WBKmUtWaOIeYrgfR-oCYCQ&id=xwBPAQAAIAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=sati+forbidden, you will have to scroll a bit, but it is clearly visible.

Other than that, the actual/alternate name for Sati is "atma- tydga", there are sources about it as well, got one for it. OccultZone (talk) 15:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It can be backed by multiple sources... "..despite the texts which have just been referred to, the preponderance of the dharmashastra literature weighs in on the side of the judgment that sati is wrong in any situation. So, this scholar insists that 'The authors of the shastras forbid this system and said that it is a sin like suicide." Read "The Legacy of Women's Uplift in India", Page 79, [4](last paragraph to first few paragraphs of next page). Also this book, [5], it's related text can be read from here about prohibition of sati:-

dushelov.no-ip.org/ftp/encyclopedy/ocr/str/encyclopaediaofr12hastuoft.pdf/str-223.txt OccultZone (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hang on. Are you suggesting we should use a text that we can only see in Google Books snippet view? That's not acceptable. You are going about the research in the wrong order. Instead of making a claim and trying to find sources to back it, we need to find out which the best sources are on sati, and then summarise them. It's using the wrong method that leads us to misrepresent sources, a serious matter on Wikipedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

3/4 are not snippet, only 1 is, and the other one has been described through other site link. But isn't it like, we got many other sources that are usually snippet. OccultZone (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. We are trying to make the sourcing better, not worse. You may find it useful to consult WP:HISTRS for the kinds of sources that at least some of us believe to be acceptable in history-related articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but sometimes if it's harder to find a source about less discussed subject, what can be the issue? Louis Herbert Gray is obviously reliable source, his related content mentioned above, any other? OccultZone (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

It's by no means immediately apparent that Louis Herbert Gray is reliable for this article. He wasn't a historian, and was writing during the colonial era, when all sorts of racist misconceptions were circulated. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Still, sources had been provided/taken previously, we are only arguing for the third one. If we look further, we would know that the reformers had further argued that none of the scripture promotes or sanction this practice, in fact, it forbids them. For example some Raja Ram mohan roy, can be read from here [6], [7], which I think, is added to the article as well, the sentence "Hindu texts forbids its practice" is just a part of Lead. OccultZone (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

For historical topics like this a 100 year old source is a primary source. The article should be built on recent scholarly secondary sources (e.g. recent hindu nationalist literature or hindu apologetics also wouldnt be considered reliable sources for claims about history). That means that we stick with what the main secondary sources say about both the issue of whether it is forbidden in Hindu scripture, and about how and when it was introduced into Hindu culture. The sources you are describing do not state that hindu scripture prohibits Sati, but that Ram Mohun argued that it did. As with all scripture it is a matter of interpretation what is and isn't prohibited. The only thing we can say is that prominent Hindu theologians have argued that Sati is prohibited.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Dont think you have read whole discussion. Atleast 5 RS have been posted, 2 of them being recognized already. Its not matter of interpretation at all as long as it is not even contradicting other, so I am not getting what we need more now. The comment you replied to was only for telling that raja ram mohan roy added it on some basis that sati is banned for current age, as revitionists claimed if it is sanctioned by texts. OccultZone (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted the last version by other user, as he never responded about it, and the version(reverted to) was very dubious itself. Not editing lead right now, but some of article, Is must read, as well. Hopefully it will clear all remaining doubts. OccultZone (talk) 04:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Now the cat's well and truly out of the bag. The link you give includes "the eminent historian Koenraad Elst". That's the kind of source you think we ought to be citing? Please stop wasting our time with this nonsense. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I cited 2 sources, not just one. I think, for now we can drop the "other atrocities", if you find it hard.OccultZone (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted, again, as that newly added content was incorrect. And anyone using Elst as a source needs to be beaten with a trout. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, can you describe what was incorrect except the one single objected source? It can be replaced with Michael Adas easily. Why you removed the quote by Raja Ram Mohan roy, as well as the lead which included at least 500 bytes of undiscussed information, And replaced with the version of a SPA which is obviously Fringe? OccultZone (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

As I told you in the section above, "revived most notably during" is not in the sources, also your quote above in this section is wrong, you have missed a paragraph, I looked at it yesterday but forgot to post. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I added the quote, Today, not yesterday, it's not incorrect, you can read from Here. Other thing is, the basic meaning of the given source was revival. OccultZone (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the content you added which was quoted above by Judith, and childrens books, well not really RS. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

One more source for describing revival.[[8]]

Even if Childrens book, is not a RS, the quote is actually popular, supported by more sources,[9], [10], [11] OccultZone (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS and WP:SPS, that link for "revival" is self published. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you actually read the sources? Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India being used by you to state "All these instances are murders according to every shastra." is actually text is from a petition from 1818 asking that Sati be made illegal. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The author of that book, had his material published by non-self publisher before, so he can be regarded as WP:RS as per WP:SPS, see"Jayesh+Shah"(if searched by author), If we can't use the word "revive", what word we will have to use? We can use "started", or "widespread"? There are 6 sources supporting the same, thus simply used "revived" as it's same meaning.

Raja Ram Mohan roy's quote can be used in the sense of "he petitioned...."? OccultZone (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

For Roy I would write, "In a petition to the British East India Company in 1818 Ram Mohan Roy wrote that "All these instances are murders according to every shastra." And cite it to Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Correct. Added already. Now you or Itsmejudith must contribute with the sentence that "the practice was revived most notably during the Muslim invasions of India.", keeping in mind we got sources such as [12], [13], [14](cites multiple sources), [15], etc. OccultZone (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please take this to RSN for more opinions. I can't see that the sentence can be supported by any of your proposed references, which differ wildly in quality. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't see any need to be taken to RSN, since all of these sources seems reliable. If you oppose the edit, you must suggest one as well. What's wrong with the following? :-

"During the Islamic conquest of Indian subcontinent, Sati practice revived,[16], [17], [18] as rapes and abductions were commonly carried out by the Islamic invaders. Other atrocities by Islamic invaders included the enslavement, Harem, etc."[19],[20] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/revived for the definition. OccultZone (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You mentioned 3 sources. One (Yang) is highly reliable and an excellent source for the article. The second is marginal as it is literary criticism rather than history. The third is unreliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned 6 sources not 3.. Can you instead name the source by there title ? Can't get "one" "second".. OccultZone (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Women and Social Reform in India, by Yang 2008. Chapter 1 by Yang and Chapter 2 by Mani are both good sources. They should be drawn on extensively in this article.

2, The danger of Gender: Caste, class and gender in contemporary Indian women’s writing by Clara Nubile has the following: "The Muslims did not destroy the caste structure and their invasion had the immediate consequence of tightening up restraints on Hindu women by Brahmins. Around 1000 AD the prohibition of remarriage for widows amongst the top castes was extended to child widows for fear of intermarriage with Muslims and the subsequent conversion. The incidence of sati increased particularly in the warring regions of the North. The widows were often forced onto the pyre by their husband’s relatives or by their sons." This does not support the proposed sentence. And if we were to draw from this, we should also draw from the slightly earlier statement. "The earliest evidence of widow-burning was recorded in 510 AD and this practice was demanded more and more by upper caste men. The act was supposed to bring the woman the highest religious merit, hence the meaning of the word sati, a "virtuous woman."" Both extracts are in an introductory section: Women in Indian History: A Brief Survey. I don’t see this as reliable for contentious social history.

3. Islam Under Siege by Akbar S. Ahmed is not a book about Indian history and its brief mention of this period should not be treated as reliable for this article. The author is not a social historian of India.

4. Brownstudy in Heathenland by M N Behera. Just a very strange book. If you really do want to propose that this is serious history, please initiate a discussion.

5. Islamic Jihad: a legacy of forced conversion, imperialism, and slavery by M A Khan, editor Islam Watch is of course an Islamophobic rant from start to finish. Self-published.

6. Thefreedictionary is a dictionary. We all know what "revived" means, at least if we are editing the English Wikipedia we ought to know. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

If you had digged M.A.Khan's source properly, you would had found few related sources, like i found 1. Read [21], Probably he wasn't wrong about it. Anyways, Check this one [22], I don't think "Brownstudy in Heathenland by M N Behera" is unreliable, because it is published by known publishers. OccultZone (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Brownstudy is catalogued as "controversial literature" at OCLC 53385077. I note too that it is only held in a small number of large university libraries, which tend to have comprehensive (vice selective) collections. Further, it is the only work by that author catalogued. The publisher seems to be credible, but there are only two mentions of that book found by Google Scholar. Those two are not citations, but just listings under "Books Received" sections of two journals (the Journal of the American Academy of Religion and the Journal of Asian Studies). This conveys exactly zero evidence of credibility to the subject work. On top of all that, the content (see for instance the sloppy hand-drawn maps) is transparently amateurish. I'd need to see some real evidence that someone credible took it seriously before supporting its use here.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Clarence-Smith contains nothing on the topic of this article. Parameswaran and Ram are writing about theatre, and are only describing what sati is because they are writing for an international audience who may never have heard of it; they aren't experts on this topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the book is from Raoul Granqvist, a scholar, the source isn't reliable? I think its recognized by 3rd person who is reliable source. Some sources might have been added before, but overlooked, [23].

BTW, you still haven't explained that how Akbar S. Ahmed is not reliable source.

LeadSongDog, that probably means "Brownstudy" is a reliable source, as long as it has been used by multiple authors, because it is "controversial" doesn't means it's unreliable, otherwise it had been removed by University Press of America first. The book is also recognized by the National Library of Australia.[24] OccultZone (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is simply a catalogue entry, not a substantive review. We do not consider cataloguing data conveys any credibility to a source. It only tells people that the source can be located. Only after someone knowledgeable gets that source, reads it, and publishes a secondary source commenting on it could we have grounds to consider it reliable. The University Press of America is a commercial publisher. We don't use publishers' decision to publish as evidence that the book is a reliable source, or we would have to accept every book, no matter how bad, as reliable. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahmed and Parameswaran & Ram are in the same category of scholarly texts that are not related to this topic. You are raising these questions because you are working in the wrong order. You have a point that you wish to see in the article and you are trawling through Google Books to find a source for it. What we should be doing is to find out which scholars who are historians of India have discussed the topic of sati, and then summarising their work. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Saw this issue was raised on Indian noticeboard by multiple users. Why the information was removed , Instead you could have added the tags like "" or other tag?

Muslim Period':- Women and Social Reform in India, and 2nd one that can be used would be The Nation, the State, and Indian Identity.

Prohibition:- Except the sources noted before, It's amazing that no one highlighted that all Vedic rituals are forbidden for the present age(3102 BCE- now), and it includes the Sati which was a Ritual suicide. Sati had religious importance only in Satiyuga, not after that. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Judith, Don't think there's anything wrong if i am digging for more sources, and i think there are enough sources by now. Are you thinking of inserting 100% similar information back to it now? Since they are sourced. OccultZone (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti, on what published basis do you assert that Brownstudy "is highly a reliable source"? I've looked and not found any such evidence of its reliability, as discussed above. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Can be matter of doubt, you are not incorrect. Just edited. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Honour preseving sacrifices are definitely attested from the time of conquests, but are they sati, or imitations of sati?

I think the editor adding this should, in the course of future research seek material that probe deeper into these times of crises for Hindu women. Many more societies under foreign onslaught than the Hindu world saw women choosing suicide, rather than accepting a state of new slavery. Thus, the mental matrix will here expectably, be rather different than the mental matrix of sati of "proper" sati, and that difference would be preferable to add in the newly included material.Arildnordby (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. Linking up to Jauhar ought to be sufficient.Arildnordby (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fusion of 2.4 and 4.3 NECESSARY

At the moment, the article suffers from messy double book-keeping on modern instances, legislation and incidences. This ought to be remedied, with making a new section on "modern times" fusing together these subsections.Arildnordby (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Improvements on internal Hindu thinking needed

In particular, the solid reasons on WHY so many Hindu theologians said that sati only could be acceptable if it was thoroughly voluntary by the woman should have its own section.Arildnordby (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for truly CRITICAL eyes!!!!

I have made, on a number of places in this article, MAJOR changes in structuring, refs and content that I believe represent improvements. But, Wikipedia should never be a lone man project, in particular on articles like this, with 122 watchers, and of possibly potentially inflammatory and derogatory content. It has not at all been my intention to restructure the article in ways that might offer genuine grounds for offence either among muslims or hindus; rather, my aim has been to maximize reliability of content. But, in particular, if I have added or restructured in such a way that isn't sufficiently reliable, in particular on sub-themes others feel offended by, I hope that constructive criticisms, and re-editings of what I've written can further improve reliability, verifiability, and neutral point of view of the article. Thanks.Arildnordby (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I left for hardly 12 days, and this page seemed to be different page for a sec. You can add here whatever you want, especially when you have been blocked for this page, before adding any changes to the article.

The excessive chronology that you wrote, especially citing Vedic Age to be degradation of women rights, is contradictory. See:-

http://web.archive.org/web/20080724121920/http://www.infochangeindia.org/WomenIbp.jsp (from Women in India)

If you go by history of this page, you will read that there were always some reliable sources, backing the text, that has been written, especially about Muslim period.

But some users remove them, because they were "offended". WP:Words to watch tells that you can use the words if they are cited as per source. There is similar issue, with many other articles of Domestic violence. It is not a matter who they offend or they don't. But again, discuss here, propose the change you want.

Also, try to make all changes with single edit. Same with talk page. Thank you. OccultZone (talk) 18:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I said canturies AFTER Vedic Age saw a decline in women's status relative to that period.Arildnordby (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Unclear that how many centuries. We certainly uses "1st Century AD", but you don't seem to be adding so much. Neither your references say anything. OccultZone (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seaid that the Vedic Age saw a decline in the status of women; but that the centuries THEREAFTER, saw such a decline, relative to Vedic Age. And, the references certainly bear out the period after the Vedic Age saw such a decline in status relative to itArildnordby (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Also I am in favor of editing whole version back to 7th January. (non conflicted). The page has many issues. OccultZone (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Still, what are the dates? When did women rights declined. OccultZone (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

As the source clearly states, AFTER the Vedic Age, and that is what I wrote.Arildnordby (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Alright, Is there any incident during 500 BCE - 200 BCE? Or even 500 BCE - 400 AD. Answer. OccultZone (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't said that, I quite clearly referred to Yang the view SHE transmits of the theory that sati was a concomitant feature to this decline. "Decline in status of women" does NOT mean "sati" as such. Secondly, I fully represent her reservations to this being a SOLE explanation. Thirdly, we have, as directly stated, literary reference going back to 400 BCE (as mentioned by Yang). Fourthly, the article quite clearly states that devli stones first appear about 400CE, which I say is roughly 800 years after the first literary reference.Arildnordby (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And, please defend why you remove a link to a scholarly reference to Ibn Fadlan, which shows that the slave girl was NOT burned alive, but burnt along with her master after having been stabbed to death. Was that right of you to remove?Arildnordby (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

There is strong evidence to suggest that occult may be a sockpuppet of Bladesmulti. Same arguing over Yang again? Really? And source removal? StuffandTruth (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

If anyone thinks I am a sock puppet, open a SPI, don't tell here. OccultZone (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ibn Fadlan? Well. I certainly didn't pointed a selected sentence, but here i can note some:-

The practice of sati is not mentioned in any of the earliest religious texts, and our first literary reference is from the fourth century BCE, some 800 years before the evidence by memorial stones begins to appear. Relative to the Vedic Age (1700-500 BCE). - Was it mentioned later, which ones?

there is consensus that a decline in women's status occurred in the following centuries, and one view on the increase in practice of sati is that it is a concomitant feature of this decline in the status of women. - Source? What are the datings?

However, Yang says it would be to overstate the equation to say the increase of sati depended solely on this declined status of women (or only reflected it), nor can it explain the uneven geographical spread of this practice. Citing Romila Thapar, Yang notes as additional explanatory factors, "the practice may have originated among societies in flux and become customary among those holding property..Once it was established as a custom associated with the Kshatriyas (i.e, ruling military elite), it would continue to be so among those claiming Kshatriya status as well" - Single opinion.

Which is a SCHOLARLY opinion. YOu are NOT to remove that, but I will be HAPPY if you introduce other equally SCHOLARLY references as well, arguing oppositelt. What you shoul NEVER, EVER do, is to remove fully referenced material from respected scholars. But, that's what you are guilt of, just as Bladesmulti. That is why, due to same MO, I regard you to be the same individual.Arildnordby (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Such things are notable, but in notes, when you write on the article, you should cite multiple sources. For the similar fact. OccultZone (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

NO, you are the one to add scholarly references that goes in YOUR direction. You are NOT to removed well sourced material.Arildnordby (talk) 19:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

From about 1812, the Bengali reformer Raja Rammohan Roy started his own campaign against the practice. He was motivated by the experience of seeing his own sister-in-law being forced to commit sati. Among his actions, he visited Calcutta cremation grounds to persuade widows against immolation, formed watch groups to do the same, and wrote and disseminated articles to show that it was not required by scripture.

It was sourced already, as per discussion above, search:-

"For Roy I would write, "In a petition to the British East India Company in 1818 Ram Mohan Roy wrote that "All these instances are murders according to every shastra." And cite it to Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India." by Darkness Shines.

So, later on, in these few days, the citation might have been removed by any of you 2(blades, arid). OccultZone (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't removed a citation on Roy; but I do believe I introducing a "citation needed" tag, I would not remove what was written there by some other editor.Arildnordby (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Then I think I am sorry for misunderstanding your edits. Anyways, I will make a page on sandbox, After 12 hours. Will you be helping? It includes many of them are unknown here. But they got reliable sources. OccultZone (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely! I think that the history of Hindu reformers relative to sati is VERY important to get right on this article.Arildnordby (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this support.

BTW, I had many favorable views for the same. Even from Sitush, after this issue was posted on Indian noticeboard, by Marks Arsten, But once these editors are back to this topic. It would be better. OccultZone (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I reckon, I wont disagree with the current version, only if you edit the Vedic period, with better words. As well as reform movements. Also you must avoid the Incident/cases, unless they are notable(i.e. have their own wikipage). OccultZone (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

a)I will make it clearer that the Vedic Age, by many, are regarded as a Golden Age for women (and that it is AFTER that period, sati at some point begin to appear in literary and stone evidence). b) Hindu reformers is much too important to be contained in disparate sections which is NOW the condition od the article (you have, for example, the "Hindu criticisms" subsection elsewhere). What I really want is that aniother editor (you, for example), make a SEPARATE, well-sourced SECTION synthesizing material on this very important topic.Arildnordby (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Just withdrawn complaint from Kevin(check his talk page), you seem to be having better faith here. OccultZone (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

a) Sorry for my explicit suspicions on sockpuppetry. b) I leave to YOU restructuring of material to highlight the complex issue on reform movement. It seems you are better informed on it, and I haven't made any changes in that material, because I didn't think I knew enough about it, so I left it stand as it were. c) When it comes to incidents/cases, I REMOVED a wholly unattested 1973 case, but did add reports on how European travellers described the UNCOMMON ritual of live burial, and their reactions to it. I think such a case is open for discussion, they might be compressed on Sati (practice), and instead be included on Live burial. That's a judgment call. Furthermore, I have added some refs on official British statistics, one of our PRINCIPAL sources on early nineteenth century Bengal practice. I think this inclusion is not only notable, but ESSENTIAL. Lastly, I haven't added any cases from 20th-21st centuries, but I've checked the links, so they might be regarded as verifiable. As for notability, they are certainly notable enough to substantiate that the practice is still (very occasionally) carried out in some rural parts of India.Arildnordby (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

British Statistics were good research. Thus I haven't objected them. No hurries, Whenever you see me free with the current on-going edits on Women Abuse articles, simply ping me. You can start too as well. OccultZone (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that a mass removal basically objects to ALL added material, even if that wasn't your intention. That is why I became so pissed off. I am perfectly willing, as we now seem to get into, important point-by-point criticisms of what I've written, ad once the article is unprotected, I will definitely clarifying what I wrote on Vedic Age.Arildnordby (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected

There's a significant ongoing content dispute here that is headed in the direction of editwarring that I don't have time to fully evaluate until later today. I have fully protected the article for 24 hours. Work things out on talk. I'll be taking further action against this entire set of articles later today when I'm back at my house. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "content dispute". It is about canvassing for the ban discussion relative to User:Bladesmulti OccultZone is falsely charging me by saying the Vedic Age saw a decline in women's position; I said the precise opposite. The crucial issue is that he doesn't want SCHOLARLY reservations to the importance of Muslim invasions in the spread of sati to be included art Wikipedia.Arildnordby (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I made no comments here, for over 3-5 days now, why you mentioned me? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe you are engaging in Sockpuppetry.Arildnordby (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

• Arild: if you'd like to have someone investigate if he is sockpuppeting, please head to WP:SPI. It's pretty easy to fill out a case request, where admins experienced in dealing with the sort of behavioral evaluation needed here will help out, and checkusers will potentially be able to check technical details if needed.. If you don't fill out a case request (although I think it may be a good idea,) please stop accusing him of being a sock. I'm going to leave the protection in place for now. I'll both be taking a closer look at what's going on here later today, and taking some action about this entire related suite of articles. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

What to do on "Hindu reforms"? Some ideas

First off, to get this right on nineteenth century reforms are VERY important. But, I am dissatisfied at the moment concerning representation the theological tradition speaking in favour of non-sati (or no mentioning it at all!)- At the moment, only Rig Veda is included, but surely, Laws of Manu, for example, would be a notable inclusion here? Furthermore, since even within areas with highest frequency, that frequency is estimated in the range of 0.2-1.2 percent of widows. Thus, it MUST exist bundles of theological treatises that clearly commands that sati is NEVER to performed, unless solid grounds for the voluntary self-sacrifice is present. Furthermore, it OUGHT to exist numbers of manuals that allows, or even commands, the PREVENTION of sati, even in cases where the woman seems to wish this out of her own will. To present such "early" reformers, if you like, would be highly valuable to include in this article.Arildnordby (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My revert

I've just stepped in to stop another edit war, applying WP:BRD by re-reverting OccultZone's addition (see here). There are yet more accusations of sockpuppetry being made, for which the correct venue is WP:SPI, and there was a counter-accusation in Canto's edit summary that I really didn't understand on the face of it because Occultzone's stuff did appear at least to be sourced.

Canto, you need to explain your "unverified/unreliable" summary; OccultZone, you need to take a hike over to WP:SPI with your evidence. If socking is going on then there is no point in warring against it: let the investigation resolve the underlying issue and then revert. It doesn't look as if anyone is actually going to suffer in real life by waiting a little while (eg: it is not a BLP-violating situation).

I'm also going to dig through the sources that OccultZone inserted but the placement of their efforts was most certainly not ideal. Take a look at WP:LEAD, please. - Sitush (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad to have more eyes looking through this article. Re: my revert, Trinath Mishra is not an acceptable source for the claims made, as I've explained before. The quote from [Hastings et al, 1908] (a dated source, for one) refers specifically to the Tantras and is not an reasonable WP:LEAD summary of the many views articulated by Hindu texts (covered in several sections of this very article). The sentence, "Either voluntary act or a form of coerced suicide, it has been heavily debated." is ungrammatical, repeated twice and adds little in the lead. Much of this has been explained before to User:OccultZone who seems to have completely ignored it while reinstating the faulty text. Canto55 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

[25] is unavailable. Such changes were discussed on my talk page. And there are no sources of these information. I can't guarantee about Either voluntary act or a form of coerced suicide, it has been heavily debated, it was inserted by Maunus, I had checked 2/4 sources. They supported information. Trinath Mishra's is not reliable? Any proof? His book was published by Penguin Books. [26] is not working. Hastings is talking about what has been allowed and forbidden in present age, by scriptural evidences. There is no need to misrepresent, a quote was provided. OccultZone (Talk) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Have fixed the link for [Hastings et al, 1908] above. Canto55 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You have not. For further clearance, I am copy-pasting here, "Value for the interpretation and interrelation of Hindu doctrine. They are generous and broad in their sympathies, recognize no distinction of caste or sex, 'for men and women equally compose humankind,' and they forbid the practice of sati."[27],[28]. Don't forget that both publishers are reliable or trustworthy. OccultZone (Talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: Link for [Hastings et al, 1908] got borked in edit conflict. Now fixed. Really. Canto55 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

And from your reading of the source, can you be kind enough to tell us *what* are "generous and broad in their sympathies [..., etc]"? Canto55 (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has changed. How it is less credible for Lead compared to your source? When your source cannot be confirmed or backed by multiple sources. OccultZone (Talk) 19:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

(1) You haven't answered the question, which was posed to point out where you'd misinterpreted the source. (2) If, by "your source", you mean the paper [Brick, 2010] cited by User:Mw8382[29] and User:Hjoiek[30] and by " cannot be confirmed", you mean you don't have access to the paper, then let me point you to WP:SOURCEACCESS. Canto55 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here I can see the misrepresentation of source. If the information exists, why it cannot be backed by multiple sources? Why there is only 1 source for such a huge mess? You can't use WP:SOURCEACCESS as a scapegoat here. Because this edit[31] provides a non-accessible source. Still it can be confirmed by multiple sources. OccultZone (Talk) 06:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for your remarks. I'll be going through those sources as best I can. As you say, there was some repetition in the edit but I'd presume that OccultZone would have removed that if the entire contribution had not been reverted. I've just read the article as it currently stands and, well, it ain't great: it looks far too long to me, replete with trivia etc. But that is for another day.

OccultZone, are any of the sources that you cited available online? That will speed things up. - Sitush (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

- Encyclopaedia of religion and ethics. I think there are multiple sources, more should be added.[32], last paragraph. OccultZone (Talk) 18:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Re. the "heavily debated" sentence, I had tried to improve it with this stand-in statement:

A rarely practiced ritual but one that has persisted to the present-day, sati has been proscribed by law from the time of the Mughals through to modern India. Retaining some support among Hindu traditionalists, it remains an important issue in delineating the role of of women in Hinduism and in India.

which User:OccultZone promptly reverted, without so much as an edit summary, and went on to characterize my edit as "vandalism". So its not like I'm brimming over with collegial warmth in my interactions on this page. Canto55 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about the validity of source here. It includes your revert to number of edits, including[33], [34]. Because you recovered those. OccultZone (Talk) 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You had misrepresented Vidyasagar before. It is written "Parasara Sambhita saw only three paths for her to follow; ascetism (brahmacharya), remarriage, or sati. The last was illegal. In the present age (Kaliyuga) being an ascetic was scarcely possible, and that was why the shastras gave primacy to remarriage, he argued."[35] He was not talking about secular law anywhere, but the scriptures. OccultZone (Talk) 19:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I've accurately described[36] what [Dasgupta, 2003] says. The line, "The last was illegal.", is a reference to secular law, not scriptural injunction. If you believe otherwise, ask other editors to weigh in. And if you want other editors to pitch in and help you evaluate and read sources correctly because you're unable to do it well by yourself, then start treating them civilly and stop making up baseless allegations about them. Canto55 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't use yourself as source. You can bring the actual sources, if there are any. "Secular law" is not mentioned in whole book. So you can let me know how you thought of Secular law. OccultZone (Talk) 06:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Vidyasagar said that in the Kaliyuga, it was difficult, for women to practice life long celibacy, the third alternative, marriage had been prescribed for women in Kaliyuga.. So his point was that Sati wasn't allowed for Kaliyuga, and women could re-marry. Thus he wanted it to be illegal.{as per [37] p.33} You lack the competence, in these regards. And all of your edits are either unsourced or misrepresenting source. I'm wondering why you haven't argued about them. OccultZone (Talk) 06:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Source review

• Mishra is not a reliable source: no expertise, published by a general publisher, seemingly not recognised by academics. This was also discussed in January. If you disagree then your correct course should be WP:RSN, not an attempt to use it again here. Unless, of course, you have found some compelling evidence as to why it should be reconsidered.
• Hastings should not be used. He may be right but there is a substantial range of modern literature on the subject and we should always prefer modern sources to those from the Raj period. Furthermore, lead sections are supposed to summarise the body of the article and, as Canto55 says somewhere above, the purpose for which Hastings is used in the lead completely misrepresents what the article body says. Either the body is wrong (so fix it) or this skewed point should not have a place in the lead. - Sitush (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: What about [38]? Source is misused. Canto55 hasn't backed it, there is lack of verification, and multiple sources. OccultZone (Talk) 11:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Mishra is writer of one book. Other book from Bookwise, is actually from Sayan Chatterjee. OccultZone (Talk) 18:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Apart from Misra'. There are total of 3-4 sources, [39] is another source. We had agreed that it is a good source, but insisted that it can also be described in section. Later you were gone. OccultZone (Talk) 19:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm playing catch-up here. I went into hospital for an operation in early January but they found a tumour and so ended up removing that instead. I'm still not right now physically and have a 2,000-page watchlist, so it has all taken a bit of time. There is no deadline, though, on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The mess on Scriptures, my proposal for improvement

Anant Altekar is STILL regarded as having given a comprehensive review of historical development; modern scholars disagree with him on a) His lack of differentiation between different REGIONS of India, and b) To make the contrast between Vedic Age and Middle Ages (700-1100 AD) too large. Those parts a), b), should therefore be modified by modern expertise view.

Here is my (still very rough) proposal for how we should structure this section:

1. Vedic scripts: Mention the funeral hymns of symbolic sati, as well as the option of widow remarriage back then

2. Pre-Gupta/early Gupta theological scripts: These tend to be in favour of ascetic celibacy, with nothing particularly heroizing about sati.

3. Epic writings as Mahabharata and Ramayana: These DO include a few stray instances of sati, those should be mentioned. However, they ALSO contain many more instances of revered widows who did NOT commit sati, and such instances ought to be mentioned as well.

4. Post-Gupta to early middle Ages: Here, sati is gradually becoming revered, but we also have stringent opponents, such as 7th century poet Banabhatta, who deserves mentioning as well as such as the Tantric movements, which seems well documented opposed the practice.

5. Dharmashastric middle ages period Here, consensus is gradually converging towards recommendability of sati (this will be a difficult subsection to write, in order to get the balance)

6. Later scripts /ca.14th-18th century): Here, I have already included a small paragraph that seems to justify forced sati as well.

---

Now, this very rough model is, from what I've read very much in its chronology what just about EVERY solid researcher is working within, with nuances here and there, of course (no one, for example, says that scriptural valorization of sati was predominant in Gupta, or that extensive condemnation of sati is found in the 15th-16th century, say) . Thus, I think our basic aim should be to bolster this chronological outlook as best we can.

Let us work together, and use the Talk Page frequently to gradually reach consensus! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

He is expertised in this field. So these texts mention Sati, but they don't support. What we have to do is, if we cannot insert "Hindu texts forbids its practice in Kali yuga, the current age", we can still keep "Hindu texts forbid its practice", and one of the source can be used for explaining in subsection, like we discussed before. You can read, "Awakening"[40], "Law, Justice and Social Change"[41] "Suicide in India in a Religious, Political and Social Context", [42], Women in World Religions [43]

Any problem with, "Either voluntary act or a form of ritual suicide, it has been heavily debated," and its source? OccultZone (Talk) 11:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No, we cannot keep the statement "Hindu texts forbid its practice" because none of your sources support such a statement. Two of the four sources you list, [Sharma, 1987] and [Das Gupta, 2003], have been discussed before and other editors have told you that they do not support the claim you want to make[44][45][46]. So why are you again bringing up those same sources without any acknowledgement of the previous discussion and without responding to the concerns previously raised?

The problem with "Either voluntary act or a form of ritual suicide, it has been heavily debated" is that it is contradictory and inaccurate (not even wrong?). There is no either/or dichotomy between "voluntary act" and "ritual suicide", a ritual suicide is a voluntary act. So no one has heavily debated this. What I'm guessing this sentence is supposed to mean is that acts of sati span the range from being "purely voluntary" to socially pressurized and even further, to being actively forced. That statement is widely acknowledged, not "heavily debated". Canto55 (talk) 06:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Links that you provided, they approved these sources, except the Mishra's who we are not using anymore now. First of all you haven't read the sources, and you are inserting your own opinion without providing any sources. It is quite obvious that you have made your account only for trashing this page. Probably that's why we are not having any help from you. Have you read "Law, Justice and Social Change"[47] "Suicide in India in a Religious, Political and Social Context", [48], Women in World Religions [49]? All of them supports that Hindu scriptures forbids Sati. And [50] is one of the latest, backed by multiple sources, it included The authors of the shastras(religious texts) forbid this system and said that it is a sin like suicide. Similar thing that was proposed by reformists. Cannot be ignored, or else it can be added exactly. And the analysis by Arildnordby, after a WP:RS is also explanatory. If none of them allow, or support, but forbid and we have sources for that. OccultZone (Talk) 06:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I am saddened tthat NEITHER of you seem willing to understand the need to make a clear chronological framework here; both of you are just pushing your POVs, rather than being willing to understand that there are lots of features on this (in particular chronology) that is UNCONTROVERSIAL, and that this should then first be worked at, rather than nagging each other at one abstruse source. Get adult, please.Arildnordby (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agreed before, that Anant Altekar is expert in this area, he is recommended by modern scholarship as well.[51], [52] You have content. The issue is how you will be adding. OccultZone (Talk) 13:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Copied + pasted from supposedly same source, that is provided in this edit[53], In this book "sahagamana" is the word, used for "sati"

"As is fairly well known, there is no mention of sahagamana whatsoever in either Vedic literature or any of the early Dharmasutras or Dharmasastras. (2) In fact, of all the extant smrtis on dharma, only those two that are very likely the youngest, namely, the Vaisnava Dharmasastra (also known as Visnu Smrti/Dharmasutra [ViDh]) and the Parasara Smrti, make any mention of sahagamana. The relevant passages of these works read as follows: (3)"

 mrte bhartari brahmacaryam tadanvarohanam va | (ViDh 25.14)
 When a woman's husband has died, she should either practice ascetic
 celibacy or ascend (the funeral pyre) after him.

mrte bhartari ya nari brahmacaryavrate sthita | sa mrta labhate svargam yatha te brahmacarinah || tisrah kotyo 'rdhakoti ca yani romani manuse | tavatkalam vaset svarge bhartaram yanugacchati || vyalagrahi yatha vyalam balad uddharate bilat || evam stri patim uddhrtya tenaiva saha modate || (Parasara Smrti 4.29-31)

 If a woman adheres to a vow of ascetic celibacy (brahntacarya) after
 her husband has died, then when she dies, she obtains heaven, just
 like those who were celibate. Further, three and a half krores or
 however many hairs are on a human body--for that long a time (in
 years) a woman who follows her husband (in death) shall dwell in
 heaven. And just as a snake-catcher forcefully lifts up a snake out
 of its hole, so does this woman lift up her husband and then rejoices
 together with him.

"However, Kiparsky (1979) has convincingly demonstrated that in the Astadhyayi Panini uses the word va to mark the more preferable of two alternatives. In other words, va does not simply mean 'or' for Panini; it means 'or preferably'. Hence, if Visnu is here following Panini's particular usage of va, then he must consider sahagamana to be preferable to ascetic celibacy as an option for widows. Unfortunately, however, it is unclear whether or not he is in fact following Panini's precise usage here and, as a result, the issue must remain unresolved."

Importantly, however, not all smrti passages that mention sahagamana endorse the practice, for, beginning with Vijnanesvara (c. 1076-1127), authors working within the Dharmasastra tradition cite a number of authoritative scriptures that explicitly prohibit Brahmin widows from performing sahagamana. The Two most frequently cited of these are ascribed to Paithlnasi and Angiras. (9) They read as follows: mrtanugamanam nasti brahmanya brahmasasanat | itaresam tu varnanam stridharmo 'yam parah smrtah ||

 Due to Vedic injunction a Brahmin woman should not follow her husband
 in death, but for the other social classes tradition holds this to he
 the supreme Law of Women.

ya stri brahmanajatiya mrtam patim anuvrajet | sa svargam atmaghatena natmanam na patim nayet ||

 When a woman of Brahmin caste follows her husband in death, by
 killing herself she leads neither herself nor her husband to heaven.

Although all medieval exegetes who cite these passages and others like them manage to greatly reduce their proscriptive scope, to a neutral reader their intention is clear: they issue a general prohibition against sahagamana in the case of Brahmin widows. Hence, they inform us that while their authors, who were undoubtedly Brahmins, had no specific objection to non-Brahmin widows performing sahagamana, they strongly objected to this practice among widows of their own social class. This, in turn, may be taken to suggest that sahagamana was well established among certain other social groups at the time these scriptures were composed, but still relatively new and, therefore, controversial amongst orthodox Brahmins. Thus, these smrti passages add further support to the thesis compellingly put forth by Kane (vol. 2 [1962]: 626-27) that when Brahmins first developed the practice of sahagamana, they did so by adopting it from the royal/warrior class. At the very least these scriptures tell us that some authoritative Brahmin men felt deeply apprehensive about their own widows performing sahagamana.

With this in mind, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Medhatithi, who probably lived in ninth- or tenth-century Kashmir (10) and may have written the earliest extant commentary to discuss the issue, (11) staunchly opposes the practice.

Here Medhatithi puts forth two different arguments against sahagamana. First, he argues that the practice is adharmic, because it is analogous to the syena sacrifice, a Vedic ritual whose explicit result is the death of the sacrificer's enemies. According to the traditional interpretation given by Sahara in his commentary on Purvamimamsa Sutra 1.1.2, the performance of the syena sacrifice is not in conformity with dharma, since there is a general prohibition against violence. The Veda simply slates that if a person wants to kill his enemies, the syena sacrifice is one means of accomplishing his goal. It does not, however, enjoin the killing of one's enemies, so there is no specific injunction that would override the general prohibition against violence. Using the analogy of this sacrifice, Medhatithi argues that smrtis like that of Angiras do not actually enjoin sahagamana, because they explicitly mention its result, namely, heaven. They only state that if a widow wants to be reborn in heaven, sahagamana is one possible means. Thus, as in the case of the syena sacrifice, the general prohibition against violence still applies. Medhatithi's second argument against sahagamana is considerably simpler: those smrtis that evidently prescribe sahagamana as a means of attaining heaven are in direct contradiction with those statements in the extant, perceivable Veda that prohibit suicide. And since it is an accepted exegetical principle that sruti--the extant, perceivable Veda--is of greater authority than smrti, the various smrti statements that appear to advocate sahagamana can be construed to have a different meaning. On these two grounds, the earliest commentarial work within the Dharmasastra tradition to address the topic of sahagamana takes a position that is completely opposed to the practice.

His analysis is obviously not limited with the 2-3 quotes that have been posted, it far is bigger. That is why all quotes should be removed, and summarized instead. Source is not based upon single point of view either, the way it has been added to main page. Author seems to be finding the meaning behind these quotes and remarking them opposite. OccultZone (Talk) 08:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not too sure about removal of all quotes, rather, a better selection of quotes showing the actual distribution of arguments is better. Inserting quotes has an additional value beyond "correctness" that a terse summary has not, namely an enriching insight into the culturally specific manner of argumentation. For example, the "snake catcher" simile is a beautiful, poetic passage that deserves inclusion merely on basis on its aesthetic worth, not just its distilled, logical content. Balance in section length is something we can work on later, first priority is good structure and accuracy, which is easier achieved by a pedantic inclusion of stuffArildnordby (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct, still, there is some amount of Undue weight. Vishnu Smriti and Vaishnava Dharmsastra are same thing. Read [54], "VISHNU-SMRITI, also known as Vishnu-Sutra and Vaishnava Dharma-Sastra, a law book of the Hindus. It was translated by Julius Jolly, and printed as the seventh volume of the Sacred Books of the East." OccultZone (Talk) 15:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As yet today, I have merely done some minor restructurings, but added paras that ought to be enlightening about how it will be fleshed out.Arildnordby (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It is clearer now. Brick's justification/arguments can be added now, noting that he is the main commentator of whole book. OccultZone (Talk) 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Thx for support. It has dawned upon me (while reading Brick, for example) that minor, explicit paras on Brahmin widows and svarga vs. moksha are necessary in order to capture the nuances of the proponent position. I have added those, and these will then remain independent paras, in addition to a historical sketch of evolution towards onsensus, in tune with the included summary from Brick.Arildnordby (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome! And no doubt, because we have already described enough. OccultZone (Talk) 16:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I value your support, but "described enough"? Hmm.. I'm a verbose fellow, but not immune against solid arguments for condensation of representation! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

False dates

The article says that the British Raj outlawed the practice in 1990. The British Raj broke up in 1947--92.232.49.38 (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

[55], it was fresh information. Just reverted. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)