Talk:Acid attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

link number 7

link #7 is borked—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.111.23.142 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a good name for this article ?

The article, Misogynist_Acid_attacks, was created, but then had a speedy deletion tag placed on it, then moved from Misogynist_Acid_attacks to Acid attack here and slightly expanded. I think the name Misogynist attacks is more suitable than Misogynist_Acid_attacks or Acid attack, because there are similar attacks in those parts of Asia where burning or scalding oil or water are used or women set on fire instead. However, these attacks are not necessarily committed by true misogynists, which are chronic general woman-haters, but men who felt jilted by a certain woman or situation at one time. I don't know what a better name would be. Nevertheless, this topic is important enough to have its own article in Wikipedia. H Padleckas 04:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I originated the Misogynist Acid attack page, and am disappointed the way it has been altered, to an extent. I am not a feminist. However, it must be noted that most attacks are motivated by the desire of the attacker that the women should blindly submit to them, and the attacks are portrayed as "punishment"; this is why I define it as misogynist. Actually, it is misanthropic, and needs to be punished more severely, and in such a manner that the "romantic" edge of it in South Asian eyes is taken off. Lastly, can I request that the Pak acid attack link be restored? Lucio Mas

Have done it. Lucio Mas

I have rewritten this article and left the name as "Acid Attack," as I find this to be the most neutral term for it. Some do not believe misogyny exists, and to call something a misogynistic something-or-other assumes a common belief in misogyny. It also disregards some opinions regarding the characterization of these attacks as misogynistic a result of Western pressure/ethnocentrism. I've tried to address this. onesong

Moreover, "vitriolage" redirects here, and "vitrioleuse" redirects to "vitriolage". Given that, in Europe, vitrolage was largely perceived as a crime committed by women (whether or not this is accurate is debatable, but, certainly, "vitrioleuse" is encountered far more often than "vitrioleur", which I've only seen in connection with French Indochina), a strictly neutral POV would seem to be indicated. (Granted, the article doesn't currently address vitriolage in the historical European context, but I would hope that it would someday.) Eastcheap (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Acid attack is a poor title since a survey of the sources indicates that this term almost always refers to corrosion in the context of construction. As a form of assault, acid throwing seems better and so I am moving to this title. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Although this article was informative, it did not explicitly define what an Acid Attack is.

I second this, it doesn't actually say what an Acid Attack is!

Ladies and gents, let me repost the first paragraph: "Acid attacks are a violent phenomenon that primarily occur in parts of certain South Asian countries, such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and are often perpetrated by males against females. Perpetrators of these attacks throw acid at their victims, burning them. The consequences are multiple: permanent marks on the body, disfiguration and potentially blindness."onesong

More importantly, what about stomach-acid attacks? Very different from the subject of this article. -OrangeDog 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture

That picture is really disturbing for being right on top of the article.

The image should be removed. It's unclear who the perpetrators are, where the photo was taken, when it was taken, the only reliable source is a record label and it has an image of a president (Reagan?), making it clearly non-neutral.-Wafulz 22:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware what image you are discussing, assume it has been deleted, however this one might be useful (taken by a Finnish journalist for an article on the phenomenon in India for the Finnish daily Hufvudstadsbladet. I'm certain a local upload would be do-able under fair-use (right to quote/quotation right under Finnish law)): direct link, article (Swedish language). Alternatively, the author could be contacted for permission. 85.134.21.38 15:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

re-working the page a little

The page was heavily tagged with {{originalresearch}} and [{tl|weasel}} - these issues have now been sorted out. What remains is a through fact checking - I've tagged what needs sourcing and I've removed whta is unsourcable. I've done some research into this phenomenon and I will be adding some referenced material in due course. What I would suggest is that the treatment section needs attention and that the other uses of the term needs to be linked to the appropriate articles. I'm going to move the picture in the lower section to the top of the artciel as defined by WP:MOS#Images--Cailil ^talk 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added {{Unbalanced-section}} to the Victims and Treatment section becuase, while notable references to male-male and male-female acid attacks would be fine these attacks have no encyclopedic notability - not referenced in multiple mainstream third-party sources. Similarly I have concerns about teh notability of all the links in the 'Acid attacks around the world' section. If these cannot be improved by April 15th they will have to go--Cailil ^talk 23:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph with the notice you added, by deleting one reference that had a dead link as a cite, and moving the other reference to the Incidents section. I believe that at least some, if not all of the incidents meet the general notability guideline established in WP:NOTABLE, primarily by receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. If you wish, however, we can evaluate these together on a case-by-case basis. Blackworm (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also why would only male-male or male-female attacks be notable? Is a WikiProject or other group reviewing this article? Blackworm (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur that a lot of the incidents meet the general notability guildeline. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of the news reports notability, some (the Ethiopian case in particular) have received wide spread reporting but others have not. Even still for me there is a due weight issue with all of them; on top of that it seems like a list for a list's sake. I do think the more notable ones should be kept in some form - maybe the external links. I do think a case by case review would be helpful - one or two might deserve a paragraph in the article itself.

On the "why would only male-male or male-female attacks be notable?" - you may have picked me up wrong and I may have not expressed myself adequately. I was talking about the specific incidents - the ones you removed (in my view rightly) as OR and undue - which were non-notable - I'm not in any way saying that female-male attacks would be any less notable than others, because they would be just as notable as male-female or male-male or female-female attacks when they get significant coverage--Cailil ^talk 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I think we mostly agree on what should be done here. You seem to feel more strongly about the list than I do, but I agree with your solutions. Blackworm (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Expansion

Does anyone have any objections to creating a section Motivation_of_attackers

with a new paragraph added

Religious reasons have also been given for attacks. Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress. According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed," for failure to wear hijab.

Crazysuit has made an edit summary complaint that the change is original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position
but I don't think that's justified based on the sources I gave. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have 3 concerns. First the name of the section should probably be: "Supposed motivation of attackers". Second the length of the quote in the footnote is too long for comfort. And third, the main point of the paragraph is synthesizing sources to advance a position.
However, the claim being made is not extraordinary, so my suggestion is this - can you find one source that states: Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress. At present linking the 7 examples (although factually accurate) is essay style & seems like a novel argument. However I'm sure I came across something similar to your point in The Encyclopaedia of the Muslim World. I'll see if I can find the reference--Cailil ^talk 19:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

1) How about Possible motivations of attackers as a section title?

"Supposed" sounds skeptical, as though the author is about to disprove the claims.

2) How about this shortened quote by Benard: According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "hundreds" of women in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, "have been blinded or maimed" by acid thrown on their "unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed".

3) the closest I come to one source that states: Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress,

is Iranian journalist Amir Taheri who says "scores -- some say hundreds -- of women ... in Baalbek, in Beirut, in southern Lebanon and in many other Muslim cities from Tunis to Kuala Lumpur," were attacked in a similar manner (to acid being thrown in the face) from 1980 to 1986. Taheri, Amir, Holy Terror : the Inside Story of Islamic Terrorism, Adler & Adler, 1987, p.12

If people don't like that we could limit it to the regions mentioned by Benard - Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Motivation of Attackers

This is from WP:OR:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source.

We are allowed to use primary sources as long as the information is easily verifiable. I verified it personally with a simple text search. Sure enough, skipping to the first occurence of the word "acid" shows the exact information mentioned in the article.

In addition, I think you're misunderstanding WP:SYNTH. SYNTH requires a claim to be made that is not made in the sources. We are simply echoing the sources. There is no possiblity of synthesis until we interpret these sources. Unless you're calling this sentence synthesis...

Religious reasons have also been given for attacks.

Each source stated that the reason for the acid attack was the dress code, which we know to be a part of Sharia. What you could argue is that it's a cultural matter as opposed to religious, in which case, we could make the sentence more specific, saying that the dress code was the reason for each attack. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

One can not claim that this is a social phonomonon in country X and Y by putting together unrelated sources documenting isolated and unrelated incidents in countries X and Y, doing so is a violation of WP:SYNTH, and undo weight. --CreazySuit (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

CreazySuit is correct. The use of primary sources is not based upon the easy of its verification. Primary sources can be used only: a) when there is no other option (in this case there are many other options); and b) in articles directly about themselves (that is to say that, a newspaper on an acid attack against person X would be useful in the article about person X, not here). Be very clear - linking primary sources in any way is novel synthesis. I pointed out the problems with this section to BoogaLouie above, please review that comment--Cailil ^talk 10:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Quote the policy saying that Primary sources can only be used when there is no other option. Quote the policy saying that primary sources are only appropriate in articles about themselves. Quote the policy saying linking primary sources in any way is SYNTH. This is still a misunderstanding of the SYNTH policy. Two statements in sources must be in the article and then the article must conclude on a third statement not present in the sources. That is SYNTH. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources? At least two sources are books, and at least two are mainstream newspapers. These aren't primary sources. Please read and familiarize yourself with WP:PSTS. I don't believe it's original research (synthesis) to present these sources in that way, except to the extent that we must verify that each one indeed mentions a religious motivation.

And I too would be very interested in see quotes from actual policy that support your surprising claims. Blackworm (talk) 20:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

What about undo weight? What about SYNTH policy?--CreazySuit (talk) 22:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

People, you can't say "X people have been accused of doing X or Y" and then list a bunch of unrelated sources as "evidence", this is a clear violation of SYNTH policy which clearly states that "Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C." To claim such claim, you need a source that explicitly says "X people have been accused of doing X or Y", you can't connect the dots yourself, doing so is synthesizing. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If the statement Religious reasons have also been given for attacks. is removed, where is there a synthesis?

Where is there a synthesis in the statement: Islamists in South Asia, Iran[1], Afghanistan, [2] Gaza, [3] Srinagar [4] [5][6] and Lebanon [7] have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress.

To follow your symbolic alphabet logic formulations, is it synthesis to take statements: There is X in A. There is X in B. There is X in C. and make a statement There is X in A, B, and C.?

Is that a synthesis or just concise writing? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that that is not synthesis of the form discussed in WP:SYN, since there is no stated or implied conclusion that does not follow directly from the sources. It is the same as saying something like, Countries that entirely lie north of the equator include Canada[1], Belgium[2], and Japan[3]. It's not synthesis. To reference the example given in policy, there is no "C." Those arguing that there is, should be specific and tell us what that stated or implied conclusion is, specifically. Blackworm (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis is synthesis, there are no acceptable forms synthesis in Wikipedia. You just can not cite different sources to drive at a conclusion that is not explicitly supported by a source. I've added the appropriate dispute tags, and will request 3rd party opinion, until the issues is resolved.--CreazySuit (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

to drive at a conclusion -- I specifically asked, what is the conclusion? You seem to be arguing against the organization of the text rather than any original argument, and arguments have conclusions. By the way, thank you for putting up a disputed tag, I should have probably done it while reverting as a show of good faith. Blackworm (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Creazy, you're really making it hard for me to assume good faith. This is the second time you've been making highly disputed edits with extremely vague explanations. Note that at Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, you convinced the other editors the moment you started actually explaining your edits. We've explained to you that this is not SYNTH because no claim is made in the article that is not in the sources. Your response has basically been "yes it is." It's going to take more than that to convince us. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

" We've explained to you that this is not SYNTH " is not good enough, your explanation is invalid. It's synthesis, because the policy says so. An administrator, who has been elected by the community to uphold Wikipedia policies, has also confirmed that it's indeed a violation of SYNTH. [[1]] --CreazySuit (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that you've given up on rational debate. That's fine. I won't say anything more, but I will continue to revert your edits until you decide to return to the negotiating table and counter with more than, "your explanation is invalid." AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Read what that administrator stated about the SYNTH vio, and do not make threats to disrupt Wikipedia, your behavior will not go unnoticed. --CreazySuit (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this again, he is not an administrator. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, wrong debate. Which administrator? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You claim to be interested in a genuine debate, yet you don't even read my comment. I am talking about User:Cailil, an administrator who clearly stated that[2] : "I have 3 concerns. First the name of the section should probably be: "Supposed motivation of attackers". Second the length of the quote in the footnote is too long for comfort. And third, the main point of the paragraph is synthesizing sources to advance a position.
However, the claim being made is not extraordinary, so my suggestion is this - can you find one source that states: Islamists in South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Gaza, Srinagar and Lebanon have been accused of using or threatening to use acid to attack the faces of women in an effort to coerce them to refrain from wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress. At present linking the 7 examples (although factually accurate) is essay style & seems like a novel argument." --CreazySuit (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

That comment by the administrator was made before I ever came to this article. How can I respond to your comment with "which administrator" if I never read it? I can only say this so many times, read the example of synthesis. A third claim must be made in the article that is not in the sources. It's that simple. No claim is made. The article is giving examples of attacks made to make women dress modestly. Each source says the attacks are because of the dress. Do you dispute this? The article says the attacks are because of the dress. Are there any more claims made by the article? The last sentence is simply a quote. There could not be a more objective way to say something. Admittedly, I'm surprised that Cailil is calling this SYNTH but I guess not even administrators are perfect.

I'd like to point out that I am making a huge concession by allowing any mention of the acid attack in Jerusalem to be in this article. The source does not confirm that it was the Modesty Patrol that made the attack. It does not confirm the 14 year old girl was the target of the attack (the attacker only asked her surname). It does not confirm that the girl's dress was the motivation of the attack. Frankly, I don't think this much uncertainty has any place in Wikipedia, but I will not delete it entirely as a show of good faith for you. I'm not trying to attack the Middle-East. But I will not allow censorship to hide its negative aspects. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I came upon this article after a post made on my talk page. I think the SYNTH concerns can be avoided if the sentence structure is altered. It's original research to say "Islamists have used/threatened acid attacks in ..." and then provide a list of sources not related to eachother, many of which don't actually even use the word Islamist. A better way to write it would simply to say 'Reports highlight occasions where women in Iran, South Asia, Gaza etc. etc. have been attacked/threatened with acid for not wearing the veil.' - hence no assumptions about motivations beyond what is explicitly related by the sources (I'm presuming the sources themselves are of reliable nature). It sounds a little editorialised, but it's a lot more encyclopedic than the current formulation. Regards, ITAQALLAH 17:40, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Itaqallah is saying. There should be no problem with the majority of the point being made in the disputed text. But, how that point is being made is problematic.
Some of the sources being used are opinion pieces (and primary sources)[3][4] some of them are books and journal papers (secondary sources) and they are being strung together to make a point; they are also being connected as if they all bear equal weight.
Now, what is irritating is, the major point about dress codes can be easily & properly sourced - but rather than using what verifiable sources are saying, some editors are choosing to write an essay of their own.
Itaqallah has pointed out one of the glaring problems with the disputed text - none of the sources say "Islamists". Also each of the sources is describing an occurrence of the phenomenon that is not 100% similar. A way of addressing this would be to restructure the text and begin by saying that: Some acid attacks have being motivated by ideologies about women's clothing." Then to cite each regional and specific example separately and carefully - being sure to give it due weight--Cailil ^talk 19:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Meena, heroine of Afghanistan, is a far better source than the Juan Cole quote. I had not come across that book. So sorry that irritated you.

http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2001/08/14pio.htm is also a opinion piece but that incident is also verified by the story in the Independent: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010830/ai_n14405127

If you insist on deleting the meindia.nic.in story I certainly will not protest. As for the sentence

Some acid attacks have being motivated by ideologies about women's clothing, we could also say Some acid attacks have being motivated by some ideas that some people have, but that would miss a point mentioned in all the reports - the perpetrators of the attacks were all Islamic extremists of some sort.

Islamic element

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20010830/ai_n14405127 "militant Islamic organisation"
• Molavi, Afshini The Soul of Iran, Norton, (2005), p.152 "A bearded young man approached me. He said he would throw acid on my face if I did not comply with the rules", the rules proclaimed by the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran
• http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881802888&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull a group in Gaza calling itself "Just Swords of Islam"
• Taheri, Amir, Holy Terror They objected to the `lax way` in which they thought she was dressed, and accused her of `insulting the blood of the martyrs` by not having her hair fully covered. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I know in mentioning the word Islam we may give aid and comfort to Islamophobes, but without some mention of Islam the paragraph is omitting a crucial piece of information about the motivation of the perps. All the "ideologies" involved were based on interpretations of Islam.

So the issue I have with Itaqallah's

Reports highlight occasions where women in Iran, South Asia, Gaza etc. etc. have been attacked/threatened with acid for not wearing the veil

- is that many people will know that the veil refers to hijab and the traditional Islamic regulations for women, but not everyone, and, well, wikipedia should be for everyone.

My suggestion, something like :

Reports highlight occasions where women in Iran, South Asia, Gaza etc. etc. have been attacked/threatened with acid for not wearing the Islamic veil. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I was totally overlooking the Islamist thing, but I think it would be hard to seriously argue that these men were not motivated by Isalmic Extremism. Personally, I like Booga's compromise better, but Itaqallah's would also be acceptable in my opinion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

isolated incidents

Beside the SYNTH concerns, how do you justify inclusion of those countries based on isolated incidents, and in Iran's case, by citing one incident of a threat, not even an attack. One single unverifiable threat of an attack (claimed by a partisan Iranian editorialist) does not make acid attacks a general phenomenon in Iran or any of the other places mentioned in the disputed line - unlike Pakistan or Bangladesh where Acid Attacks are actually a general phenomenon with hundreds of documented cases. So the line in question is not only a violation of SYNTH , it's also a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. --CreazySuit (talk) 07:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No one but you is suggesting it's a "general phenomenon." If it's been described as a "general phenomenon" in some of those places but not others, bring sources saying so and rewrite the paragraph. There doesn't seem to me to be any implied statement that these attacks are a common phenomenon in these places. Thus, it's not WP:SYN. Blackworm (talk) 07:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You're lumping together isolated incidents to make a POV point, that's [[WP:SYN]. If you confess that this is not "general phenomenon" in those places, and then why does it even merit inclusion? Read WP:UNDUE. --CreazySuit (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'm kinda agreeing with Creazy now. The way the section is currently worded there does seem to be the implication each of these countries has had more than one attack. We need some more sources for this. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The Israel incident should be deleted too, that's WP:UNDUE as well.--CreazySuit (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Compromise solution

If remove the other incidents then it sounds like the attacks are limited to Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan. If people think that there "does seem to be the implication each of these countries has had more than one attack" we could cut it down to

Attacks or threats of attacks on women wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress have been reported in other countries as well,

rather than listing South Asia, Iran[14], Afghanistan, [15] Gaza, [16] Srinagar [17] [18][19] and Lebanon [20]. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that's an acceptable compromise. I certainly don't think anyone could justify deleting it. You could also tack on all the sources from the last version so if people wanted to know about the additional attacks and threats they could read for themselves. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with that, but what's wrong with listing the countries? It doesn't have to be a common phenomenon, since we aren't saying that it's a common phenomenon in those places. Blackworm (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Creazy made a strong argument of WP:WEIGHT. We have countries where perhaps one attack has been recorded in its history with exactly as many sentences as countries where attacks happen on a weekly basis. It's a subtle but definitely present implication of equal prominence. It would be like listing types of crime in the US and mentioning Samurai sword standoffs. This would make the reader think this happens on occassion when it's only happened once. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK I'll put the truncated sentence in. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One last issue: adding the word Islam

The word Islamist has been voted down as synthesis but as I mentioned before we still need something about Islam in the 2nd paragraph of the motivation section. I propose adding "or Islamic head covering" to sentence:

`According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed," for failure to wear hijab, or Islamic head covering.`

I know hijab is by definition Islamic and Islamic head covering is a pretty crude definition of hijab but we need to add something for those ignorant of what is hijab is and there is a link for those who want to know more. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reciting a defintion is not WP:SYNTH. I think what you've proposed is fair. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

• The recent addition is a vast improvement on its previous form. However there is still an issue with the length of the footnote for the Amir Taheri article and the summary of the Molavi should also be improved--Cailil ^talk 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you suggest? --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Summarize the articles' content in one line rather than going into so much depth. The quotations are probably unnecessary too--Cailil ^talk 22:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to attacks

Reply to:
I am not familiar enough with the life-style in Gaza or Srinagar to pass a judgment, but I am confident that this is not social phenomenon in Iran, Israel or even Lebanon for that matter.

Bear in mind acid attacks on women for bad hijab in Iran are not likely to happen anymore because they aren't necessary. Bad hijab is illegal there!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Hijab+In+Iran+women+being+arrested&search_type=&aq=f

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgXgpngHf60

In Gaza bad hijab is not illegal (as far as I know) and there are no recent reports of acid attacks, but in the late 1970s there was a campaign to get women to wear hijab that used force (though not acid so far as I know) as well as persuasion.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3012687?seq=1&cookieSet=1

It worked. Non-hijab women are rare in Gaza now. Non-hijab Shi'a women in Lebanon are also rare according to reports (I haven't been to Lebanon) and according to Amir Taheri there were a lot acid attacks on women in Lebanon in the 1980s. Any why shouldn't even the threat of an attack not have a significant impact - after all which would you rather: wear hijab or have disfiguring scars maybe blindness for the rest of your life? (According to http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2001/08/14pio.htm there was "swift compliance by women of all ages on the issue of wearing the chadar (head-dress) in public" after a threat of acid attacks in 2001.)

Obviously if acid attacks happen every week or so they are a much bigger deal then if they haven't occured in several years, but that doesn't mean acid attacks or the threaat of force on bad hijab women years ago didn't have a big impact in Palestine or Lebanon and don't count as a notable "social phenomenon." They may only be rare because they were successful and women "learned their lesson". --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A reasonable argument. If you find a source saying that, I'll support its inclusion. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC) If you find a source making the same interpretation as you* AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie, Wikipedia is not a place to write essays and editorials. To justify inclusion of your wild theories, some of which amount to nothing more than "they would have if they could have" faulty logic, you need reliable sources that say exactly what you're asserting. BTW, Amir Taheri is not a reliable source, he has been caught lying and making up stories on numerous occasions. He's widely regarded as a discredited partisan author[5], and therefore shouldn't be cited as a source on an encyclopedia. --CreazySuit (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Take your concern to WP:RSN CreazySuit - also I would ask you to refactor your remark about Taheri above - there is a WP:BLP issue with what you have said--Cailil ^talk 17:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that despite all the wikipedia regulations we follow, editors still have to make desisions, such as whether an acid attack is noteworthy. My arguement is that what might seem to be an isolated attack can have substantial and long term impact. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, like Tank Man in China. But you'd need to show that an Acid Attack was as high profile as that. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just contacted a friend from Lebanon (this is OR so take it with a grain of salt). She said that it's roughly 50/50 Christian/Muslim there and that "some" Muslim women wear the veil. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Cailil, according to WP:BLP#Non-article space, "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted." In this case it is very relevant to making an article content choice, as I'm explaining that Amir Taheri is not a reliable source, and it is perfectly acceptable for me or anyone else to object to to him being used as one. Amir Taheri's fabrications are not just an allegation (ie see 2006_Iranian sumptuary law controversy), they've been investigated and exposed by many reputable publications including the New York Times and the Economist. [6] [7] [8] --CreazySuit (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One last issue: adding the phrase "Islamic head covering"

So is there consensus for adding "or Islamic head covering" at the end of the sentence

"According to a Rand Corporation commentary by Cheryl Benard, "in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed," for failure to wear hijab."?

PS the sentence Attacks or threats of attacks on women wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress have been reported in other countries as well. is duplicated. --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No, adding "Islamic head covering" is unnecessary since the word "hijab" is and can be wikilinked--Cailil ^talk 22:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I support "Islamic head covering". Redundancy is not against any Wiki guideline. We are unnecessarily burdening the readers by redirecting them to the Hijab article when we could easily include a 3 word definition that would be clear, and in my opinion, preferrable, especially on English Wikipedia. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence "for failure to wear hijab" is directly taken from the source though. Also, Hejab does not only mean "Islamic head covering", as wearing short skirts or short sleeves could be considered "failure to wear hijab" by some, depending on their own interpretations of the "Hejab rules". --CreazySuit (talk) 02:18, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, these attacks are about more than the veil, right? It seems that Booga wants a short description of Hijab, and if we can come up with something that's accurate, it's not beyond reason to include it. Paraphrasing the sentence should not be too challenging. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

No it is unclear from the Rand piece what the exact issue these men had with the women's dress. On top of this the the Rand article is about the Hijab and France - it is not about acid attacks (it only alludes to them briefly). It is really not good enough as a source for this article because of that, and so it actually needs to be replaced--Cailil ^talk 14:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I must confess to some frustration. We have quite a few citations mentioning hijab and/or Islamic fanatacism, but neither term is found not in the text of the article. All we have is two sentences

According to a Rand Corporation commentary, hundreds of women in Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan have been blinded or maimed "when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed".[11] Attacks or threats of attacks on women wearing makeup or allegedly immodest dress have been reported in other countries as well

... with no indication of who might be doing the acid throwing or why they are offended by immodest dress! --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently an adequate source has not been provided for what you wish to add BoogaLouie. For example the Rand piece is not even about acid attacks. Also the previous version of the text with its string of sources was a novel synthesis of published material, it also accorded undue weight to a number of sources and thus contravened policy.
If there is one reliable third party source that is directly about acid attacks and that examines what you want to add then please cite it. However, until a properly verified and appropriately sourced piece is provided the text that you wish to add remains in the form of original research (as we define it on wikipedia) and cannot be included--Cailil ^talk 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources for the last sentence Booga mentions do include a mention of hijab. I've rewritten the last sentence to include it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 18:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you AzureFury.

What are you talking about Calil? A previous edit you had no problem with containted the word hijab. The Rand piece is about attacks on women who are not in hijab or sufficiently covering hijab for the attackers. All the sources mention islam and hijab. --BoogaLouie (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No BoogaLouie the Rand piece is about the Hijab and France. It only alludes to acid attacks. It is not directly about the subject and using it is original research - that would be fine in an essay but not in this encyclopedia.

BTW have you read Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan? The book does not limit its discussion to the hijab. Women were attacked by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan for any exposure of flesh (this is different to "not wearing a hijab" which allows faces to be exposed) - it was the women's legs & faces that were frequently the target of these acid attacks. Also the book states explicitly that these attacks were intended to force women not to go to University.

The problem with the Rand piece is very serious and a better source is required urgently, becuase if that sentence has to go then so does the one following it--Cailil ^talk 20:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true the RAND article is not just about "about attacks on women who are not in hijab", but it is about much more than hijab in France. Compulsion in hijab in the Muslim world is a central theme of the article. Throughout the Islamic world the hijab is often something girls and women wear because they're forced to ... In countries such as Saudi Arabia, special religious patrols beat, insult, and arrest women who aren't covered according to their stringent specifications. In Pakistan, Kashmir, and Afghanistan, hundreds of women have been blinded or maimed when acid was thrown on their unveiled faces by male fanatics who considered them improperly dressed. In post-Taliban Afghanistan, women have been raped for daring to think they could now go without the burqa.

Yes Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan says Gulbuddin Hekmatyar attacked women for any exposure of flesh. What evidence do you have that Hekmatyar thought this was somehow different from the issue of enforcing hijab? BTW have you read Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan? Does the book say hijab "allows faces to be exposed"? Or does it say: Hijab takes such varied form in Muslim countries that it ranges from a small, colorful head scarf in North Africa, ... to a full-body black abayah in Saudi Arabia that covers everything, even cloaking a woman's eye behind a black mesh. (p.25) As far as "the book states explicitly that these attacks were intended to force women not to go to University," It says "As the attackers threw the acid they yelled at the women, `Cover your faces and legs!` and then "Go home where you belong!" so it would seem "modesty" was the issue, unless you consider modesty and women staying at home different issues.

Finally what is this "very serious" and "required urgently"? Are talking about a heart attack, or an issue for which there is abundant sources but that through careful reading of wikipedia regulations can be wittled down to two sentences and then to nothing. Wouldn't your time be better spent in making wikipedia articles more informative and not in making sure you have eliminated every last jot and tittle that cannot meet your reading of wikipedias exact criteria? --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

BoogaLouie the problem is simple. You are using a source that is not directly about the subject to frame an argument - that's original research and that's a serious policy violation. If you wont fix it others will have to. If you want to use Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan you need to reflect what it says.

"unless you consider modesty and women staying at home different issues." - Simply put, yes. Clothing and public space are two separate issues becuase the current text is framed around how women were attacked for being "immodestly dressed". In Afghanistan there was a lot more to these attacks than just the hijab (issues of women being in public spaces, women in education, etc) and reducing it to fit the argument just about clothing while perhaps okay in an essay is not okay in this encyclopedia becuase it constitutes a synthesis.

There is a simple way to solve this: a)remove the Rand sentence; b)Start the paragraph with a summary of Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan (which deserves more weight than we are currently giving it); c)find a new source to replace the Rand sentence; d)use what is currently the second sentence to show that women have been attacked else where because of their clothing--Cailil ^talk 00:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)There's no policy saying that sources have to focus only on the subject we use it for. I'm getting tired of seeing synth claims thrown around when we are reciting word-for-word the text of the source. Read WP:SYNTH. Another claim must be made. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said AzureFury. I will say it again, sources must be directly about the subject. Mention, allusion and/or inference of the subject are not good enough. Please see the lede section of WP:NOR:

to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

The Rand source is not directly about acid attacks. It should be quite easy however to find a reliable source that is--Cailil ^talk 13:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Start the paragraph with a summary of Meena, Heroine of Afghanistan. Wait a minute - you said sources must be directly about the subject. The Meena book is about Meena, not acid attacks, we can't use it. Hey! this is fun thinking up reasons why information should be deleted! --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right Cailil, the information must be directly related to the article. A sentence about acid attacks is directly related to an article about acid attacks. The lead says the information must be directly related, not the source itself. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NOR and notability are inextricably entwined here

I have a major problem with this article. It is possible that it could be easily resolved and if so I would be very glad to see this article included in Wikipedia. But the issue must be resolved.

"Acid attacks" are not unique to any country or any motive. When I was a kid there was a famous journalist in NY who was blind because the mob ordered an acid attack on him after he reported on a mob-related activity. Why isn't his case in the lead of this article? the fact is, if this article were just about "people throwing acid at other people" this article would just say so and skirt violating "Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary." There has to be more to "Acid Attacks" to mak it worth an article.

What makes it worth an article is not "acid attacks" but that there is a particular pattern involing a related set of motives. That is what makes this article notable, but it also means that the article is not really about acid attacks per se but about this larger pattern. I think the various contributors recognize this, given the discussion above. There has been some discussion about the title and I think that indeed the title should be changed to reflect what this article is really about, which is not just any person throwing acid at another person for any reason. The title should reflect who does it and why, in other words, the facts that make this article notable.

And here is where we get into NOR issues. It is evident to me that certain Wikipedia editors see the pattern that make this topic notable beyond just a generic definition of an attack using acid. I see the pattern too! But the problem is this: it does not matte that I see the pattern. It does not matter that any editor sees the pattern. Seeing the pattern is the result of original research, and it is an original argument, and Wikipedia is not the appropriate venue for this. Wikipedian's views simply do not belong in Wikipedia articles.

There is a simple solution to this: find a notable view in a reliable source that argues that there is a particular pattern of acid attacks that makes the pattern worth describing and explaining in its own right. That is all. Find it, and lead with it, and I think we are on safe ground. But it has to come from an appropriate secondary source. Ideally, there should be a variety of reliable secondary sources, as NPOV encourages our providing multiple points of view. If this is a real encyclopedic topic, then there ought to be reliable secondary sources on different explanations for why it occurs, and different responses by agents of the state or human rights activists. I do not see this kind of research. I do see a lot of original research. Our policies are pretty clear on this. If this topic - I am talking about the general pattern, not the individual incidents - has not been notable enough to be discussed in reliable sources by various points of view, then it is not an encyclopedic topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Your argument that Wikipedia is not a dictionary is very weak. The articles on rape, murder, violence, etc disprove this. You say that our edits imply that there is a larger pattern than just random violence. We do explain with sources that this is the case in certain places, and that it has occured in other places. It seems to me you're making a vague accusation of POV against the whole article simply because most acid attacks happen in the same place. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

My argument is not really about NPOV, I do not think the article is in violation of NPOV although I do not see a clear discussion of the different points of view and I do believe that would strengthen the article. My main concern is that it is not clear whose point of view it is that this is a pattern or phenomenon (as opposed to a random collection of violent acts. There is a body of literature in the field of criminology among other fields on rape, on murder, etc. If there is a body of literature on this kind of crime as a kind of crime wouldn't it improve the article to provide a good account of it? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

in practice I think the present article is a rather clear example of problems with POV and balance. The crime is N, and the general use of the term is shown in the references. But the present article is not actually about acid throwing, but rather about the presence of violence against mainly women in a particular region. Such attacks have of course occurred many times elsewhere and in other contexts. Possibly there can be an better title, but this is going to be tricky. I would have commented earlier, except that I have no positive suggestions, beyond that other regions must be added. I am not the least happy with the listing of selected individual case--if there are any where there is in fact a Wikipedia article, it would solve at least that problem. DGG (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose we have two options. A) make this an article about acid violence in south asia (which has a body of scholarly attention but which could make this a POV fork); or B) globalize it (which runs a risk of making this a dictionary article). Also I agree 100% the listing of individual cases is highly problematic except where there is demonstrable scholarly attention--Cailil ^talk 23:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Even the dictionary approach would give more weight to the attacks in South Asia and the Middle East. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you want to give more weight to the attacks in South Asia and the Middle East? This is a sincere and good-faith question. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• Go to a dictionary and look up a random word. The entry will look markedly different from a policy-abiding Wikipedia article. That does not deny that articles often contain definitions. Most opening sentences of articles at Wikipedia are definitions. However, after giving a definition as groundwork for an article, Wikipedia explains the context surrounding the article's title. It is okay to define at Wikipedia. It is not okay to define and do nothing else. But that doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this issue.
• This particular problem is not about dictionaries or WP:N or WP:NOR. I feel an urge to right great wrongs, yet WP:NPOV compels me to do nothing. This article is heavily sourced (especially with regard to the common attack areas), so even though complaints of POV may hold water, advocates must offer evidence supporting their views in order to realize their opinions in the article. Anecdotes may persuade us on the talk page, but they cannot function as sourced content. Sorry. :(

—Kanodin—VENT— 13:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC) I brought up definitions only to illustrate in an extreme form the risk. My actual problems with this page are different and have to do with synth and I explained that in greater detail. I also think the NPOV point DGG brings up is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I briefly reviewed the article. Overall I agree that it focuses too much on south Asia, without placing the crime in its historical context. However, with one exception (which I've just fact-tagged) I don't see a WP:OR problem here. If WP:OR is a concern, can it be made more specific? That is, can people find a specific sentence in the article that is OR, and explain why it's OR? Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Th article says that acid throwing is common in Cambodia, Afganistan, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan. Why isn' there one article on acid throwing in Cambodia, acid throwing in Afghanistan, and so on? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a really good point SLR. And there is definitely enough information for a single article on Acid attacks in Bangladesh - most of the research is about Bangladesh after all. There is also a body of work about acid violence against women in South Asia (that is India, Pakistan & Bangladesh). Perhaps we could break this page up; write one article on acid violence in Bangladesh, and use other reliably sourced information in the Violence against women; Women in Pakistan; and Women in India articles.

Alternatively we could make this a parent article for an 'Acid violence in South Asia' article in WP:SUMMARY style and break page into sections by country; so that there would be one section for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Cambodia. We should be able to create a sub-article for Bangladesh pretty quickly. Any thoughts?--Cailil ^talk 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One does not see articles Measles in Cambodia, Measles in India, etc.; there is an article Measles. If the main current incidence of acid throwing is South Asia, then it's reasonable for this article to focus on South Asia, and there's no need for individual subarticles for each country. I don't see enough material in this article now to justify subarticles, certainly not enough to justify one subarticle per country. Eubulides (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point!!! - we have extensive secondary literature - no violations of WP:SYNTH in this case - by biologists and medical doctors demonstrating that the measles in Cambodia is the same disease as the one on India, and we have a good deal of literature by notable researchers publishing in reliable sources (the Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, New England Journal of Medicine) on how an organism can travel from Cambodia and India. Now, Eubulides, you have just suggested that acid throwing in one country is the same thing, with the same cause, as in another country, and you are saying that there is some physical mechanism by which is spreads from one country to another. Well, okwy, IF you are right, Eubulides, that acid throwing is done by the same person and we know how he has traveled from one country to another, or that there is a conspiracy among acid throwers who all belong to the same organization that promotes acid throwing and spreads information about how and when to do it from country to country - in othe3r words, IF we are to take you at your word that this is just like measles ... well, then, I have NO objections at all to this article!!! But I cannot find any secondary sources supporting your claims in the article. Eubulides, can you provide the secondary sources by notable researchers supporting your claim that this is just like measles? Let's just add those secondary sources and this article will be great! But, uh, where are your sourses? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think I'm starting to see your point Slrubenstein. It sounds to me your concerns could be alleviated by simply having a seperate section for each country or region, since they don't justify articles themselves. I've seen this sort of thing done in a lot of articles. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! For what it is worth, my only intention is to improve the encylopedia. If there actually are researchers who view these incidents as expressions of a unified phenomenon; if there are articles in sociology or criminology or S. Asian Studies or Oriental Studies journals, or whatever, that argued that these many different incidents are all connected, then I would be thrilled to see those kinds of articles cited here, with an account of how and why scholars think they are connected. That is one way to go. Separate sections on different kinds of acid-throwing - different causes, different contexts, different effects, different public responses - would be another way. i am not pushing for one way or another. It should be determined by the scholarly sources by people researching these things. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There do appear to be reliable sources that talk about acid attacks as a South Asia phenomenon, with Bangladesh having the largest incidence but with Pakistan also being mentioned as part of the phenomenon. This obviously is not a "conspiracy" to commit acid attacks, but conspiracy theories are not needed here, only reliable sources. See, for example, [9], [10], and [11]. Perhaps some of these sources should be added to the text, to establish a context that goes outside a single country. Eubulides (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A bit of research

I have just spent an hour doing Google research on the phenomenon of acid-throwing to enforce modesty. I believe I have approached this with an open mind, since I knew nothing about it at the start. My findings are that (1) it has demonstrably happened, and (2) it is generally viewed as too extreme even by people who most of us would see as extremists. There are occasional threats to do it that get a lot of publicity -- mostly from people who oppose Islamic extremism -- but there are only a handful of documented cases where it has actually occurred. The most recent I found evidence for involved two women in Srinigar in 2001. Thus, I don't believe that the "hundreds of women" line in the current article can be justified. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one have made it clear that I believe this is a real phenomenon, the question is how encyclopedic it is and that depends in part on secondary sources analyzing the problem or claiming that there is a pattern. Something that "demonstrably happened" can go in current events or a newspaper. That is not the issue here. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is not long. It seems to me it meets the general notability guidelines, if you're thinking of deleting it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Sirubenstein is not objecting to the article, only to the part that deals with acid throwing as an enforcement mechanism for Islamic head-covering rules. I don't think anybody disputes that acid throwing in Bangladesh, and to a lesser extent in other south Asian countries, is an important phenomenon. It hardly ever has anything to do with Islamic law there, however. Looie496 (talk) 02:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the "hundreds of women" includes cases going back to the 1980s, and counts Afghanistan as well (where some cases did occur). We do have a reliable source saying "hundreds of women" and we don't have a reliable source disagreeing with this estimate, so I'm a bit leery about yanking that info merely based on our own research into primary sources. Eubulides (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

I'm proposing we rename this article Acid attacks in South Asia or Acid violence in South Asia per the sources (acid throwing is not used in the context of the phenomenon in South Asia - all the sources refer either to "acid attacks" or "acid violence") and to rewrite it per WP:SUMMARY with individual sections for the 4 countries on which there is a body of significant research: Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, and Pakistan. In time if a significant body of scholarly / reliable sources can be found for the phenomenon in Afghanistan (or other South Asian countries) we can that too.

Part two of the proposal is to then spin-off (again per WP:SUMMARY) an Acid attacks in Bangladesh article (could alternatively be called "Acid violence in Bangladesh")--Cailil ^talk 21:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a page for the definition of "acid throwing" or "acid attack." Maybe a disambiguation page or a link in the lead to "Acid violence in South Asia"? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A Dis-Ambig page would do no harm - especially since the term "Acid attack" is used by dentists also--Cailil ^talk 19:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no need to separate the attacks made in particular countries or regions. The general nature of the crime is much the same in all cases and the particular motivations have some overlap in that there is a desire to disfigure and so humiliate the victim. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet there is a body of scholarly work on acid attacks in Bangladesh, and in the southern Asian region. Whereas there is little research on the phenomenon "in general". The sources deal with a specific region, we cannot use the sources to talk about the subject in other contexts--Cailil ^talk 19:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose also. There is no reason to believe the attacks differ in particular countries or regions. agree with warden that the particular motivations have some overlap in that there is a desire to disfigure and so humiliate the victim. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can verify what you're saying BoogaLouie we would all be happy to review some new sources--Cailil ^talk 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I have to admit to being confused by the !voting (becuase this is not a poll, and) since consensus to break this article up was reached (and was adjudged to have been reached by an outsider[12]) in the sections above. Can any one give me a source-based or policy based reason for not creating Acid attacks in South Asia, Acid attacks in Bangladesh and redirecting this page to a DAB page for the definition of "acid attacks" in this context, the engineering context and the dental context. Because it is this simple if nobody can provide sources to back the opinion that the phenomenon of acid violence and the motivation for it are the same all over the world then based on policy we have to rename and fully contextualize the material currently presented in this article--Cailil ^talk 11:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You proposed something and two people responded - voted whatever you want to call it - negatively to your proposal. As for comments by "outsiders" [13] the first one is worth noting:

The article seems to express one point of view about acid throwing (the article is actually not about the throwing of acid; it is about the throwing of acid in mostly Muslim countries as a crime against women) without clearly identifying the point of view, and without providing a clear account of other points of view,

It's a complaint I have to agree with. All the wikilawyering and hair-splitting done to disqualify additions and ensure as little information as possible is included in the article, has done a disservice to readers. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support Articles hould follow the sources. I am also confused by Colonel Warden's comment, "The general nature of the crime is much the same in all cases and the particular motivations have some overlap in that there is a desire to disfigure and so humiliate the victim." First, this begs the question - what "motivates" these incidents is not the deire to disfigure and humiliate them, that only begs the question, why would somenone what to humitiate and disfigure them? Any 101 criminology student would tell you that understanding this is essential to understanding the crime, at least, if you want to do anything about it. But I have a question for Colonel Warden: Who says, "The general nature of the crime is much the same in all cases?" Please provide a notable and reliable source for this claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

it would be much better to internationize the present article. DGG (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if acid attacks were strictly confined to South Asia (which they're not), that would not mean that the article should be titled "Acid Attacks in South Asia", any more than (say) Shootout should be titled "Shootouts in the United States" even if shootouts were strictly confined to the U.S. (which they're not). By the way, has anybody else picked up on the 1848 acid attack by Horace Wells on two prostitutes in New York City? It's reported in Horace Wells. Or how about Thomas Davis, the London pimp who threw acid in the face of a prostitute who had left him? That was reported in The Times on 1930-10-06. Obviously the problem of acid attacks is greater in South Asia (just as the problem of shootouts is greater in the U.S.) but this does not mean that the article needs "South Asia" in the title. If there is overemphasis on South Asia in the article, let's fix the overemphasis, rather than renaming the article. Eubulides (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

If people have access to serious discussion (sources) of this phenomenon (that are not in the article) please share them. We can't string together a series of newspaper articles from all over the world and say: "therefore the phenomenon of acid attacks is the same" - we need a source to do that, otherwise it is OR. The only reason I'm suggesting we regionalize this article is because all the serious research (I'm excluding newspaper articles in this category) is regionally based. That's the research's focus.

While I agree that it would be 100% better to internationalize this article I have not seen one verifiable and WP:DUE source that links the phenomenon in one region with another. Nor have I found a general criminological history of vitriolage - if one exists and some one else can find it then please share it, because then we can have an article about acid violence in general, its history and its global context. But unless we get the sources for such material we are stuck with an article entitled 'Acid attacks' but which is about acid violence in South Asia--Cailil ^talk 14:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eubalides' logic, as stated above. Based on his statements, along with what I've read here on Wikipedia, this style of attack seems to have originated in the United States, and come into vogue here (or there, depending on your location) during the 1950s. Nonetheless, this article states "They describe it as a relatively recent form of violence, with the earliest record in Bangladesh from 1983..." Clearly it's not such a recent form of violence on a global scale. Facts such as this should be put into some kind of better regional context, IMO. - doctorcolossus 97.118.213.147 (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One really doesn't need consensus to make a disambiguation page, nor other pages. If consensus can't be reached about changing the name of this article, then let it stay as is. The name of this article does not determine the validity of creating pages focused on Bangladesh or South Asia.

I think saying that acid attacks in every country have the same basic motivation is like saying that murder and war have the same basic motivation: to hurt the other side. Duh, of course violence involves the desire to harm someone. The question is, are they doing it for religious reasons or domestic reasons? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right Azure a disambig for the general usage of "acid attacks" (engineering, dental, and this phenomenon) should be uncontravertial. I have a mock-up here.--Cailil ^talk 14:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever get around to publishing that disambig page? Looks fine to me. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I moved it into the main-space this morning it's at Acid attack (disambiguation)--Cailil ^talk 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Acid Survivors Trust International

Hello all,

I tried to submit a link to the charity Acid Survivors Trust International (or ASTI) some time ago and it got deleted. I assume it was because I did not join in the discussion in advance. I am pretty new to Wikipedia and was not aware of the protocols so I apologise if I caused inconvenience or offence :-)

I am working with ASTI who are trying to use the internet to raise some awareness and also money. I have been liaising with them who have kindly put the text together at the bottom.

Thank you for your attention.

Cormac— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 16:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Also can you add a link through to the ASTI website? It's http://www.asti.org.uk— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is notability. Just because something exists that is related doesn't mean we include it on the Wiki page. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Can you show us that this organization has been mentioned outside its own website? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I appreciate the thoroughness. Here are two links which you should find suitable: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/bangladesh/5454220/The-lives-and-faces-rebuilt-after-acid-attacks.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/the-saviour-the-british-plastic-surgeon-helping-acid-victims-1686283.html— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That's enough for me. Looks like you've got an expanded section all ready for us. Can you find some references for the other organizations you mention? That way we can just include it all. I took a look at the article history, and the link you added was deleted without explanation. You did not violate any Wiki-etiquette btw by adding a link. Typically deletions need just as much justification as additions. Anyway, as soon as we have some cites for the rest of the statements in your expanded section, I see no problem with copy and pasting it into the article. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. Here are the links you require: Acid Survivors Foundation (ASF) http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/07/2009710201758748116.html Acid Survivors Foundation in Pakistan (ASF-P) http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/getting-burned-in-pakistan-report-finds-acid-and-burn-attacks-against-women-is-on-the-rise/ Acid Survivors Foundation in Uganda (ASF-U) http://www.france24.com/en/20080730-uganda-kampala-society-acid-attack Thank you again for your assistance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 10:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the section using your sources except the blog, as the blogs are not considered a WP:reliable source. I substituted a different source. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Great stuff! Thanks. Can we add a link to the ASTI website now? It's http://www.asti.org.uk They do a lot of charity work for the victims of acid violence. Thanks again :-)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Added the link to both the external links and the references. You are very welcome :) AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now created a page for Acid Survivors Trust International. I would be very grateful if you could link to it from the Victims and treatment section. Thanks again!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cormac Heron (talk • contribs) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ya know, I don't own the page. Feel free to edit it again if you want. In any case, I've created the link. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacks Outside Asia - change to bullet list?

I suggest changing the middle three paragraphs under "Acid Attacks Outside Asia" to a bullet list or, less preferably, separate each listed attack into a separate paragraph. Either way, the existing paragraphs don't strictly qualify as paragraphs. Each sentence with these paragraphs simply lists a separate attack and there is no topic/concluding sentence or any transition from one paragraph to the next.

Nytewing07 (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've removed this section as it is violating WP:NOT (wikipedia is not a list of examples). If there are reliable sources on the phenomenon of acid attacks outside South Asia please replace the section with that information. However another list of attacks is not good enough for an encyclopedia article--Cailil ^talk 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• To clarify just turning the list of examples into a paragraph is not good enough. If there is a source that deals with the subject of 'Acid attacks outside Asia' please cite it. Lists (where in prose style or bulleted lists) are just not good enough and constitute at best a violation of WP:NOT (as above) and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:DUE - our policy on weighting of material in articles), and at worst original research by synthesis. Do not reinstate the previous material, or other examples. Please do reinstate the section if there are sources on the topic of 'Acid attacks outside Asia'--Cailil ^talk 23:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Recent USA attack

I thought you all might find this interesting. NYC teen accused of acid attack. Girl upends a beaker of Hydrochloric acid on another girl's head because she felt her rival had stolen her boyfriend, apparently. I will leave it to the judgment of primary contributors to this page as to whether that is worth noting.... --Pstanton (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

As awful as that attack, and as any vitriolage attack is, it would be undue to add it unless it becomes significant in encyclopedic terms to teh subject. The same goes for every individual incident I'm afraid--Cailil ^talk 15:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Information On How Acid(s) Are Attained

How are acids attained? This should be included.Curb Chain (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Violence Against Women

These attacks are also perpetrated against men so I dont think that this article should be part of the series on violence against women as it portrays it as a single gender issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggilicious (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and would add that I found it odd that acid throwing was presented as if it were confined to certain (mostly Islamic) countries. We unfortunately read case after case after case of this happening in America and Europe. The latest one is in the link below (warning, graphic images of victim): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113939/Patricia-Lefranc-Acid-attack-victim-arrives-testify-married-lover.html?ICO=most_read_module --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.114.219 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 March 2012‎ (UTC)

Although it is more predominant in middle eastern cultures I agree that it is not as confined to these societies as the article portrays and this should be remedied Eggilicious (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

While i agree that if sources are added showing the crimes relative prevalence in other nations or regions (or against men), we need to rewrite the passages which focus attention on the middle east to be less strict and include other regions and prevelance against men, I also strongly disagree with this being not appropriate for the VAW template. Rape, while committed against men as well as women, is identified by all parties as a significant crime against women, and no one would argue it shouldnt be in such a template. Any crime which is recognized as, in significant part, directed at women (rather than say, statistically against women with no intent, such as shoplifting from women owned stores) deserves to be in the template. A thing on Wikipedia can be part of more than one project, template, etc, and is not entirely defined by the projects its part of. If someone created a "violence against men" template, and could show enough support in literature for this being an important subject, then rape would, for instance, have to be in it, as its definitely used against men in certain circumstances (prison).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately political ideology plays too much of a role for things like this to happen. It has been well documented that men are raped nearly as much as women when prison rapes are included but certain radical elements of the feminist movement have downplayed this and some suggest that as it is often committed by men it doesnt count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggilicious (talk • contribs) 22:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Gaza

I could be wrong about this, but the acid attack in Gaza does not seem to meet the definition of "with the intention of injuring or disfiguring [the victim] out of jealousy or revenge".VR _talk 07:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Attacks Using Corrosive Chemicals Other than Acids

I just read an article about a woman who was attacked with lye, which is a base not an acid, but equally harmful. You can read the article here: http://news.yahoo.com/vt-lye-victim-gets-face-boston-hospital-142851289.html. The word "acid" does appear in a photo captions, but not in the article itself. In the strict technical sense, this woman is not the victim of an acid attack, but a lye attack or an attack with other harmful, corrosive chemicals is essentially the same as an acid attack based on what it does to the victim. Should this article be changed to reflect this? Should this article be renamed "Corrosive chemical throwing" or something like that? If not then what would be the best way of dealing with this? Brandonlee25 (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revisions for class assignment

Hello everyone! I am a Rice University student and have chosen to research and expand this article as part of a class assignment. I've read through the previous discussion posts, and greatly appreciate the insight and work that has already gone into this page. My main vision for this article includes an explanation of sociological/cultural factors that propagate such attacks, the inclusion of more demographic information, and a more global perspective on this topic. Additionally, I aim to include possible solutions to combat acid throwing, such as through the regulation of acid sales, amongst other options. From reading previous posts, I know that NPOV and reliable sources have been issues before – I plan to strictly adhere to all Wikipedia guidelines/ standards while basing my revisions on scholarly articles and research. If you have any suggestions or comments, I would love to hear them! I look forward to working with you all, thanks. Daniellam91 (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Acid Throwing in Cambodia

Hello. I am trying to edit the Cambodia section in the acid throwing page and I found some good sources. I'm not sure whether it's okay to add published stories of acid throwing in Cambodia and more statistics. I'm just not sure what kind of things to add. Help?--MandeqO (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

You have done a great job of addressing the previous concerns stated on this talk page and fulfilling your stated goals. For instance the perspective of this article has a more global tone to it now because of your efforts. Considering the work you have done here to incorporate a global viewpoint, I suggest that you request for the removal of the banner at the top of the page that was placed months ago. However, there is always room for improvement and I hope my feedback below will be helpful in that regard.

Firstly, there should be some sort of ordering mechanism in the list of countries you provide in the Prevalence section for readability purposes. You can put the list in alphabetical order or any order you like. I would suggest putting them in regional order since that will show how acid throwing is common throughout all regions of the world. Another thing is that you mention West Bengal in your list of countries when it is a state of India and not a country by itself.

Secondly, there are some grammatical errors:

• Subject verb disagreements in "Motivation for acid throwing in India mirror those in Bangladesh"; in "while Uganda analyses shows 59% of survivors"; in "Though comprehensive statistics on acid throwing in South America is sparse" and in "This negatively impact their economic viability".

• The 'a' in "Acid throwing in Cambodia...shows a slight discrimination toward women" is unnecessary.

• Incorrect tense in "Many countries have begun pushing for legislation..."

Also, the placing of the Sonali Mukherjee incident is incorrect. That case should be referenced a sentence before since it is not an example of acid throwing because of land dispute but because of a spurned suitor.

The references for this article seem thorough but there a couple of broken links (the ones in red) that I would suggest removing.

Overall, this article is well written and comprehensive. Minor improvements can significantly increase both the readability and quality of this article and I hope my feedback will prove useful in this regard.

Kjhooda (talk) 03:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Kanwal, thank you so much for your feedback! Reorganizing the countries is a great idea and should really help with readability. I've fixed the grammatical errors that you have pointed out, and I plan to find a way to better integrate the Sonali Mukherjee incident. Also, I plan on fixing the references and updating the ones that are outdated/not cited to Wikipedia standards. Thanks again for your comments - I greatly appreciate it. Daniellam91 (talk) 05:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Another Peer Review

So Kjhooda already summed up a lot of what I was actually going to suggest. Overall, the page is super informative and works very well I think. There are some minor changes that I thought of. -The ordering in the prevalence was something that I thought could be changed and improved a bit. I would go either alphabetically, or the idea to do it by region would be really cool too. It shows the importance of the situation and the true prevalence in larger areas. -I feel like some sections in which you break down the prevalence could be expanded more. I do understand that it is probably harder to find more information on specific areas over others, but including a bit more wouldn't hurt. That's not to say that it is not good without adding more, because I think it is a good summary of the prevalence of the issue by region regardless. -There are some grammar things that I also noticed, but I think Kjhooda got most of them addressed.

Everything else seems pretty good. Like I said, the article itself seems pretty thorough, just work on the little things mentioned and I think you have a solid page. There will always be room for improvement, of course, so always be sure to check on updates and further comments.

Natashacruz12 (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Natasha, thanks so much for your suggestions! I plan to reorder the list of countries in a more logical way, and I also hope to gather more research on the areas in the "Prevalence" section that are more sparse in order to add more substance to these regions. Again, thank you for you feedback - it's greatly appreciated! Daniellam91 (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Non reliable sources

"Indian acid attack survivor Shirin Juwaley founded Palash Foundation [53] to help other survivors with "psycho-social rehabilitation". She also spearheads research into social norms of beauty, speaks publicly, and blogs regularly at Do I Look 'Normal'?.[54]" Generally, Facebook and blogs are not accepted as Reliable sources. I have not checked who added it, but without coverage in secondary sources, it looks like a strategic advertisement/promotional placement. If no suitable Reliable Sources is provided, the aforesaid lines must be deleted. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 03:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Amartyabag! I've addressed the issues you've brought up regarding the unreliable sources. I've replaced the FaceBook page with the actual Palash Foundation page, which includes much more information and links to other sources for verification. Additionally, I've removed the link for the blog as it is defunct now - instead, I've pulled information from an article in The Times of India that states that Juwaley now speaks as an advocate for disfigurement victims as a whole. I hope these adjustments have addressed your concerns - if not, please let me know! Thank you so much for your feedback! Daniellam91 (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Violence Against templates

I would like to call into question the reasons why we list acid throwing on Template:Violence against women. This is not a crime exclusive to women, the 20% male victims stated on the page shows it is something both sexes suffer. At what point does a predominant enough percentage of victims make a form of assaulted gendered enough that it should be exclusively listed on 'violence against sex' templates?

If we do not also list this on 'violence against men' then I would ask: if men are also the predominant victims of a form of violent crime (which they are, in regard to murder) should we list 'murder' under Template:Violence against men as we do acid here? Ranze (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Even though it isn't exclusive to men, the majority of victims are women. Should there be a violence against women template with this? I'm not sure. Ideally articles should be gender neutral but because there is a overwhelming majority of women being victims it seems like it should be mentioned. A solution may be to make another article "Acid attacks on women" or something (Though I don't think this would solve anything). If you think murder should be included on the violence against men template then you can list it. I think when there's a gender majority in crime perhaps it should be written about but hopefully in the future Wikipedia will stop dividing things by gender. --Turn685 (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archived

Past discussions (2006-mid 2013) have now been archived. --Turn685 (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acid throwing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150715031014/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=137990 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=137990

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Jpost

It seems that @Al-Andalusi: is edit warring[14][15] over the source Jpost.com, calling it an "opinion piece" but it qualifies WP:RS. Capitals00 (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

JPost is a highly reliable Engliah language source. The press in Gaza is not free following 2006 at least. Just as we use South Korean sources dealing with North Koraa, JPost is acceptable for Gaza.Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Is JPost really the only source here? There are enough newspapers covering the conflict that we don't need to use one with a reputation for smearing "the others". Oncenawhile (talk) 07:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oncenawhile The Jerusalem Post is one of the oldest and most respected newspapers in Israel. It has no such reputation. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source (outside its opinion section). Nevertheless, if it is the only source that mentions this otherwise unknown group, I wonder whether it warrants inclusion at all. An unknown group claims to have done something, and we can only cite a single source? Why is it even in the article? — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Parts of the Israeli press, JPost included, cover Gaza and the West Bank in much greater detail and persistency than the international press which usually has coverage during hot conflict periods, diplomatic initiatives, and if an interesting clip comes from a stringer on the ground.... But routine on going coverage (not based on rehashed PR) of Gaza is quite lacking in international sources. Icewhiz (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused about whether you were replying to me, Icewhiz. I don't see any problem using the Jerusalem Post (or any reputable Israeli newspaper) as a source for news about Gaza. My concern is that unless this unknown group has been reported by other reliable sources, we're giving inappropriate weight to its claims. See WP: PROPORTION. Keep in mind that the Jerusalem Post didn't report an acid throwing attack. It reported a press release by a group it described as unknown. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no concrete opinion on the significance of this particular reported incident in the acid throwing context (which to my understanding is more an individual act of violence and less of a group "thing") I was chiming in to state JPost is a highly reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

An 85 year old newspaper, well respected worldwide... JP is one of the more reliable sources we have. Anyway, I don't see the reason to the inclusion of that incident in the article, I believe we can list hundreds of acid throwing incidents from the Middle East, dozens from Israel withoud any regard to Islam or religion, just random incidents of acid throwing that happen often and get media converege. It seems unimportant and unencyclopedic.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Another source[16] has been now added to the article. Capitals00 (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore @Icewhiz, Bolter21, MShabazz, and Debresser: This incident was backed by World Tribune. Jpost reported about this group on 2007 as well, adding that "Members of the group are also responsible for splashing acid in the face of a number of young women who had been accused of "immoral behavior."[17] This group has been also reported in detail by Washington times, Reuters as well.[18][19] Makes it notable enough to mention, and as of 2015, the group was still mentioned.[20] Capitals00 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00 is a liar who appears to have a personal vendetta (see his history of reverting my edits). My earlier edit was in March, while the 2nd one was in May. He calls this "edit warring". Yeah give me break. Secondly, I never claimed that JP was unreliable. I wrote that the content was a "dubious claim from an opinion piece". Opinion pieces (or blogs) are not necessarily reliable even when the hosting news website is reliable:

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control (see WP:Verifiability § Newspaper and magazine blogs).

This user is fully aware of my reasons behind removal (as acknowledged by his edit summary where he says "clearly not an opinion piece"), yet he chose to go to the Israeli project to rally support for his agenda with his false claim that JP is desecrated. Finally, Capitals00 is ignorant of WP:BRD. The onus is on HIM to discuss and justify its restoration a version that's been stable for months, and not the other way around. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You are a POV pusher and you don't know what's WP:BRD, content was there since 2012[21] and you made a disruptive edit on March this year,[22] it was reverted by me, now you have to describe why your WP:IDONTLIKEIT tangled edit is valid. Though it clearly seems that it isn't. It is not dubious in any case since it has been reported by Jpost and World Tribune. Capitals00 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

K take that to your personal talk pages. Now I ask the question, should this information really be in the article? Becuase if we include Gaza, we sure can find hundreds of incidents by ISIS or by other radical Islamic thugs, as well as incidents with many different motives.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 17:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

If we can find from ISIS, then indeed we can include them as well under the section of the impacted region. Capitals00 (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post reference does not appear to be an opinion column or blog . Removing it seems to have been done with a false edit summary. The 6th Floor (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Can all of you stop edit-warring for a minute, or I will have this article protected. I believe there is consensus that (a) the Jerusalem Post is a reliable source and (b) the article cited is not an opinion column. Now what? Maybe the group exists, and maybe it soesn't. Thank you, Capitals00, for finding evidence that supports its existence, or at least the presence of other press releases by the group. Unfortunately, this is an article about acid throwing and none of those articles seem to mention the group in connection with acid throwing. So is its press release, picked up only by the Jerusalem Post, sufficient to warrant mention of this "organization" in this article? Why? How does that not violate WP:PROPORTION? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

As the article mentions many examples in many countries there is no reason to whitewash Gaza. Furthermore this being an organized communicated threat to women at large for immodesty is quite significant in the context of the article, which mainly mentions individual actions, even if this was a fringe group.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Its just not "only" Jerusalem Post, but also Haaretz,[23] The World Tribune[24] and they did their own research, JPost reported about acid attacks again one year later[25]. I have not really searched for more sources yet but when 3 separate news networks have focused their articles on this group and also mentioned the acid attacks it passes the criteria of inclusion. Since the group continues to have been described by other sources like businessinsider, reuters, washingtonpost like I said, it makes it prevalent enough to have mention with acid attack over here. Capitals00 (talk) 05:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I had checked this out back in 2013. Multiple sources indicating same connection is clearly not falling under WP:PROPORTION, it is rather an important and relevent information for this article. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days and so far, the proponents for inclusion have come up with only a handful of sources. This should tell you something about the event's significance. We do know that this is clearly an isolated event, attributed to an obscure group, and that this group itself is boasting about it and taking credit for it. There is no indication whatsoever that acid throwing did actually take place. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The same could be said of several otger exampkes in tge article. In the case there are actual strong RS sources that jave reported this threat and activity. Sometimes just a threat is enough... The proportion of hijab clad womed have gone up quite sharply since the installation os the Hamas regime.Icewhiz (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Not really. The other examples in the article have wide coverage in the news. This one though, is almost nil. Spent a bit of time and I could not find anything in Arabic. I'm calling BS. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And thus we return to JPost (as well as Haaretz, World Tribune, etc) being RS. What arab press? The ones who are under the Hamas boot in Gaza? The wider pan-Arab preess might have seen no reason to run a piece which does not cover Zionest\Gazan conflict which is the main thing they cover regarding Gaza. As this was in RS, it should stay. Icewhiz (talk)

So the entire Arab press and all Arab residents in Palestine are blind, and only the Jewish media is capable of authenticity. Besides, what makes you so sure that Hamas would suppress this information? Islamist groups don't come in one size or shape, they are varied, and IMO only a moron would lump them all together. I think WP:PROPORTION is pretty clear on this isolated threat. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION doesn't apply unless you are still going to misrepresent the information as "This one though, is almost nil", despite coverage by multiple reliable sources. At first you challeneged the credibility of Jpost and now you are resorting to personal attacks that "only a moron would lump them all together" and getting too personal, "entire Arab press and all Arab residents in Palestine are blind, and only the Jewish media is capable". Better stop this kind of WP:DE. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 01:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Capitals00, you keep citing sources that report nothing more than what this "group"'s press releases say. Please read the sources more carefully and more critically. None of the sources report the group's existence as fact or its alleged actions as facts. There is no indication that the "group" is anything more than one person with a fax machine. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

You got me rolling. As per these sources: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] and a simple "google scholar" or "google books" of "gaza hijab acid" - leads to hundreds of sources claiming use of intimidation by Hamas (and proxies) in Gaza (and in the West bank to a lesser extent) to cause women to wear hijabs - intimidation that ranges from threats, through tomatoes, stones, and as the ultimate measure throwing acid in the face. This is a long running phenomena - from the founding of Hamas it would seem, that has caused a markedly increased use of hijab by women (in the past - Palestinian women, in Gaza as well, tended actually to wear quite modern dress. Hijab use was much less frequent). I Believe this systemic use of intimidation, ultimately reaching use of acid, by Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank to promote hijab use should be given a prominent place in the article. And guess what? Much of the writing is not by Israeli sources - but the more progressive and feminist side of the Palestinian movement (e.g. PFLP and other sub-groups that actually promoted a modern role for Palestinian women).Icewhiz (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@MShahbazz: They said "goes by the name" we can better rewrite the information if you agree but really not remove it. Many of the above sources provided by Icewhiz including[35][36] are strong enough. What do you say? Capitals00 (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And here's a b'tselem report dating back to 1994: [www.btselem.org/download/199401_collaboration_suspects_eng.doc] - noting use of acid in several instances:

1. On November 10, 1990, Shamasnah and ten members of his family went to the home of the Badwan family. They entered the house and stabbed the wife, Fatmah Badwan, age 65, eight times in the back, wounding her in the chest and spleen, and causing internal lesions. They then threw acid on her chest and in her eyes, blinding her and scarring her face.
2. During the Intifada, the local cells, which are identified with the various organizations, have taken the place of the hamulah as the source of power and authority in the family issues as well, and the concept of “family honor” has acquired national significance. If traditionally only the father's family was held responsible for the woman's behavior, during the Intifada, the street leadership itself began to take on this “authority.” The leadership began to lay down rules of behavior for women in circulars telling them to ensure modest behavior and traditional dress, including head covering. Women who did not behave as expected became vulnerable to attack by Palestinian activists. These attacks included pouring acid on their bodies, throwing stones at them, threats, and even rape. (footnoote: Statements concerning instances of rape have been taken by B'Tselem (for example, the statement made by A.H. on December 19, 1993); however, the taboo nature of this subject in Arab society means that it is impossible to obtain reliable numerical data concerning the number of women who have been raped by members of gangs during the Intifada on the grounds of collaboration or immoral behavior.)
3. Sana Zbeidi married Khaled Muhammad Ahmad 'Abd a-Dayyem in February 1993. On July 5, 1993, she disappeared from her house; it seems that she fled to the house of the 'Abd Rabu family in Tulkarem, well-known in the area as a family of armed collaborators. According to a testimony by her husband, Khaled, he was summoned in the evening to the police station in Tulkarem, where he found his wife waiting along with her relatives. It seems that Sana Zbeidi had complained at the police station that her husband was violent towards her, and that he had beaten her and thrown acid at her. The husband denied the claims and, after promising the policeman at the station that he would not behave violently, he returned with his wife's family to 'Anabta. According to the husband's testimony, his wife told him on the way that she had been kidnapped by members of the 'Abd Rabu family, who had threatened her at gunpoint and forced her to tell the police that she had come to their house of her own free will and that her husband was in the habit of beating her.Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

If you want to play silly games and keep moving the goalposts, go ahead. Are we discussing whether acid throwing takes place in Gaza or whether the sentence in question is bullshit? Ping me if you make up your minds. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Silly games? I believe I provided ample RS, dating back to the late 80s, that state Hamas (& other Palestinian Islamist groups) use of acid (and other measures) to intimidate women in the West Bank & Gaza is quite a pronounced phenomena. This should be included in the article - along with the alleged 2006 incident. I intend to add a full paragraph detailing this (of which the 2006 event will be but one line), as this is thoroughly well documented use of acid to promote modest dress / hijab use. You really shouldn't attempt to wikiwash Palestinian islamists when there are ample RS. Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with MShabazz. No one disputes that acid throwing has occurred in the region. Speaking of Gaza, Jewish thugs from Kfar Darom opposed to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 reportedly threw acid on 10 Israeli forces as they forcibly evacuated the synagogue[37]. Bringing in a couple of events from the 80s carried out by another group in attempt to argue for the inclusion of the threat by the so-called "Swords of Islam" is just not convincing. What you cited establishes that the event had taken place, and even includes dates and names of victims. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your source states a single instance of "blue acidic liquid", and doesn't state acid injuries (e.g. disfigurement, blinding) - doesn't seem relevant. The use, by Islamist Palestinian groups, of acid attacks and threats of acid attacks is well documented by numerable RS spanning decades. This is going in.Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't quite get what is the argument for excluding the Gaza attacks, when mentions of far more sporadic attacks in e.g the UK are mentioned, without objection . This material was initially removed based on a false pretense that it was not reliably sourced. Now that we have gotten rid of that false claim, what is the argument for exclusion? The 6th Floor (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to object the inclusion of any of these Gaza acid attacks. With the above agreement of 4 editors to include the both, Swords of Islam and Hamas acid attacks and 2 users partially agreeing only on Hamas, I would encourage Icewhiz to write his paragraph on the main article. 03:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on the section. Note that while going through this, I do see Palestinian sources cited (though I can't find the original) in relation to the "Sword of Islam" acid incident in 2006. Particularly: “Islamist Group Claims Attack on Gaza Al-Arabiya Office,” Ma’an News Agency, January 25, 2007; “Salafi Group Threatens Internet Cafes in Gaza Strip,” al-Ayyam, September 2, 2006. This event is also brought up in sources a decade later - so it is of lasting significance.Icewhiz (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is for instance cited here: [38], as well as a few other places in relation to Suyuf al-Haq.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And at least the WP CTC sees this group as having a wider activity than just "one guy with a fax machine" - a wide variety of intimidation/attacks against un-Islamic behavior in Gaza, particularly around Beit Hanoun.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You established the existence of the group. That's great. But you have not provided a single source that informs us that the event has actually taken place Therefore, your wording in the article "Swords of Righteousness, has thrown acid on the faces" is dubious. The CTC reference quotes Ma’an News Agency, which clearly states that those are statements made by the group. Also, you wouldn't include bombing threats in an article on Terrorism, would you? Removing from article until proper sourcing is provided. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You are not reading the source of Haaretz and World Tribune or the Jpost from 2008. Which confirms that attack did took place. I have reverted some other POV pushing by you just now. Capitals00 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

one should note that the threat, made credible by just a few terrorist acid attacks on women who did not wear hijabs, has increased hijab use significantly. I believe I saw a quote claiming an increase in usage rate from 25% to 75% in Ramallah, but I will have to dig a bit more to get this in. Threats in this regard are quite significant. Regarding the reverts in the article, reverting terror acid attack against a family, which caused serious injuries, which was reportes by Reuters and numerous other world class RS (which I did not see a reason to add as they mainy replicated one another, the local Times of Israel did provide more detail) with the unsourced claim "just vinegar", not backed up by any source or talk page rationale does not seem to add up with good faith. The Sayuf al-Haq reported use of acid and threatts of additional uses is well documented, amply sourced, and reached a consensus here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No consensus was reached. The people whom Capital bugged in the Israeli wiki project, while asserting the reliability of the source and report, questioned the inclusion of this minor threat Bringing in other sources does not strength its inclusion in anyway. Gain consensus first. Also, start a separate section for the vinegar claim. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

People are allowed to notify relevent noticeboards when they are engaged in content dispute. Above discussion is indeed long enough to agree that consensus is against your edit. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:06, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Capital's blanket revert

@Capitals00:, feel free to explain your blanket revert here. Go over each and every single edit your reverted. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You are in a 1RR violation. In addition - you are the one who engaged in widespread reverting - without discussion. You were called out for this above.Icewhiz (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And to boot - you've reverted grammar fixes and an additional piece of info I added - in between this spat with Capitals00.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You put questionable content, some of it was removed, some of it was tagged, and some of it remained. Now discuss the disputed content as instructed by WP:BRD. If the "quotation needed" requests bothers Capitals00, along with more careful wording, then he doesn't belong in this community. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not put in questionable content - but rather content that was well and amply sourced. Some of the quotation requests are spurious - in particular when there is linked material in English - adding "quotation needed" when the link is right in front of you, is not constructive. Reverting "Swords of Islam" (or "Suyuf al-Haq", or "Swords of Righteousness") material - in light of the long discussion above in JPost + Additional significant sources - e.g. [39] For example, Suyuf al-Haq has been responsible for bombings against Gaza’s internet cafes and music shops, attacks at the alArabiya media facilities in Gaza, as well as for kidnappings and attacks against people involved in activities deemed as “immoral”—ranging from throwing sulfuric acid at a woman dressed “provocatively” to attacking a young man listening to music. - is not constructive. Finally - you are in violation of 1RR in performing a double-revert on the same block of text ([40] and [41]) in the span of 6 hours - material that is clearly within ARBPIA.Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Maybe hard for you and Capital to believe, but I did actually check every cited source. This is something evident from my pattern of editing in case you haven't noticed. I'm not convinced that the statement "Women who did not conform to these expectations were vulnerable to attacks which included pouring acid on their bodies, rock pelting, threats, and even rape" came from the 3 cited sources. Luckily, the qn tag is there to help in these cases. Note that it was entirely within my right to pull this quote out of the article (per BRD), but my choosing tagging over that should tell you something.
2. The "Suyuf al-Haq" issue was not settled. While we agreed on the reliability of the source and the threats, the question of importance for inclusion remained. Also, I found your choice of words "has thrown acid on the of faces", while being fully aware that it was just a threat, to be dishonest. Similar tactics with the exaggerated "more than 18 attacks, including" claim, which I verified myself. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

1. Regarding "Women who did not conform to these expectations were vulnerable to attacks which included pouring acid on their bodies, rock pelting, threats, and even rape", this is from: [42] Hamas maintains a very strict interpretation of Islamic Law concerning women’s dress and the wearing of the hijab. They have utilized very violent tactics to enforce these expectations, reportedly throwing battery acid on the legs of women who would not adhere to the Islamic dress codes. [43] - this comes for a section titled "Acid and Stones" - you can see it the google-books preview, but it contains Hamas began imposing its agenda on the hijab in Gaza. Whenever they saw a woman without a veil they attacked her and sometimes threw acid in her face..... Before long, bareheaded women were being stoned and abused in the street. and the 1994 b'tselem report (which I reffed down 1 sentence, as it details additional instances mentioned in the following sentence) - [44] During the Intifada, the local cells, which are identified with the various organizations, have taken the place of the hamulah as the source of power and authority in the family issues as well, and the concept of “family honor” has acquired national significance. If traditionally only the father's family was held responsible for the woman's behavior, during the Intifada, the street leadership itself began to take on this “authority.” The leadership began to lay down rules of behavior for women in circulars telling them to ensure modest behavior and traditional dress, including head covering. Women who did not behave as expected became vulnerable to attack by Palestinian activists. These attacks included pouring acid on their bodies, throwing stones at them, threats, and even rape..
2. Regarding "Suyuf al-Haq" - the cited sources claim it has thrown acid, not just a threat. [45] The group said its followers last week threw acid at the face of a young woman who was dressed "immodestly" in the center of Gaza City [46] aMembers of the group are also responsible for splashing acid in the face of a number of young women who had been accused of "immoral behavior." [47] Swords of Islam said its members threw acid in the face of a Palestinian woman who failed to cover her hair. [48] and attacks against people involved in activities deemed as “immoral”—ranging from throwing sulfuric acid at a woman dressed “provocatively” to attacking a young man listening to music.. The sources I have (and I will note I do not have the Arabic language sources which are cited in some of these sources and elsewhere, but I haven't tracked down) -- all say actual attacks. One of them (JPost from 2007) - claims several attacks. So no - I do not have source saying this was just a threat - I stuck to the sources.Icewhiz (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the "more than 18" - I actually stuck to what the source said - lumping acid and physical battery without allowing to separate, I wasn't intending to exaggerate. I actually think that your edit there was constructive - it is better worded. I will look at some point for additional Mujama use of acid (this one stood out when looking for later incidents) and/or better description (in regards to proportion of acid) of the events in 1983.Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Mujama - It seems acid attacks on leftists continued in 1986 - [49] (page 116, a number of more detailed accounts of 1983 in pages: 113-114 (PFLP activist account, pseudo-name Bassam), overview in page 104).

1. In other words, the word "rape" is not found among the 3 citations that I personally checked and tagged for "quotation needed". The "rape" and "rocks" part (or perhaps the entire statement "pouring acid on their bodies, rock pelting, threats, and even rape" is") comes from b'tselem, which was not cited. In addition, the b'tselem report attributes the rape to "local cells, which are identified with the various organizations", whereas your wording in the article says "Hamas and other Islamist factions". You are building a narrative here that contradicts the sources you are citing. In fact, the b'tselem source states just a page earlier "The cells linked with the various Palestinian organizations, particularly those identified with secular organizations' such as Fatah and the Popular Front, acted as a kind of local 'morality police". Goes to show that I was right in my suspicions that this is WP:SYNTH (as I noted in my edit summaries). The question becomes, whether blanket reverting idiots like Capitals00 and OccultZone, who have been entirely absent from this debate on the talk pages, are going to admit this error and reinstate the tags until a correction is made, or whether they are going to continue on blanket reverting and then running to the boards to complain?
2. Regarding "Suyuf al-Haq". All cited sources make it clear that those are claims made by the group. They all say "the group said..." Except for a single source, the CTC Sentinel. But then this CTC Sentinel cites a Ma’an News Agency article titled "Islamist Group Claims Attack on Gaza Al-Arabiya Office", which tells you that yet again, these are claims made by the group. This source in Arabic is a copy paste of the Ma’an article. This article ends by saying: "The group has attributed to itself in several declarations the bombing of internet cafes...attacks on women". We don't have a source that verifies the attacks actually taking place. See what I'm saying. In any case, do you agree that the wording "Suyuf al-Haq has thrown acid" should be adjusted? or even better removed entirely from the article given its lack of verification? Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

1. b'tselem was most definitely cited. One very short sentence down. The sentence originally place there contains measures that were cited by the RS quoted.
2. We can add that this behavior was also done by non-Islamists - e.g. Fatah and PFLP - which I just did.
3. This is not SYNTH - it is the use of RS who all mention acid (and various other types of attacks) against immodest women.
4. Suyuf al-Haq - this is not a threat, as you originally claimed. I will agree that most sources (though a 2007 JPost story does claim it has attacked several women, not just one, as a stmt of fact) say that the group has claimed it has attacked. There is no source saying this didn't happen. I did modify the text now to state that this is a claim by the group.Icewhiz (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

More than 18 attacks

I removed the "more than 18" statement from the article since the backing source says 18 were "beaten or had acid thrown on them". Icewhiz, who originally added the statement, agrees with the change I made.

Now the question becomes, why OccultZone and Capitals00, who have made blanket reverts [50][51] to the article which undid this particular change and who have been silent since then, continue with the disruption. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The article says "more than 18 attacks, including acid attacks", its as sensible as what is written in the source. Capitals00 (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Removing more than 18 (which is a direct copy from the source) - is better phrasing - I agree. I put this back in. Regarding the "blanket reverts" - don't play coy - you aggressively reverted other well-sourced material - which they put back in - that was what they were reacting to - the mass removal of well-sourced information (in which this single helpful phrasing edit was bunched into).Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What mass removal? are you being dramatic here like the vinegar family? The qn tags were removed, as well as the response by Hamas. Highly questionable moves. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hamas' reaction

In this edit on June 2, I added the following statement "Hamas dismissed the report as 'not credible'", which is cited by the same sources used for the torture accusations. So now we'd like to know what's on the mind of OccultZone and Capitals00, who have made blanket reverts [52][53] to the article which undid this change, and who have been silent since then. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE, we cannot provide same amount of importance to Hamas as much as Amnesty International in this article that only provides summary of the incident. Capitals00 (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I added "Hamas denies the claim". If they claim they didn't do it - it should be mentioned, briefly.Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Good. Should have been spoken about it much earlier. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Concentrated vinegar incident

In this edit on June 2, The accuracy of the newly added content was disputed. Per WP:BRD, new content that has been challenged would trigger a discussion and a consensus would have to be formed before restoration. That did not happen of course. Instead, we see users OccultZone and Capitals00, making blanket reverts [54][55] and remaining silent on the talk page. Al-Andalusi (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been proven in section below that it is related to the acid attack. Makes it useless for you to open another sub-section to repeat same argument. Capitals00 (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

2014 Acid Attack in West Bank

I see the "just vinegar" (in your edit summary - which did not provide any source to this) was pulled from Electronic-Initifada (which I doubt would be a RS), however the amended WaPo story )following investigation into the nature of the substance - [56] Israeli military and police spokesmen later said the liquid was likely “concentrated vinegar,” which contains a higher percentage of acetic acid than table vinegar and can cause burns.. Vinegar is acid to being with (household - around 3%-6%), and concentrated vinegar can be quite acidic as stated by WaPo. I will integrate this source.Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Are we now doubting WaPo as a source? [57].Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Not sure why you're trying so hard, but this incident does not belong to this article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

We have multiple RS - in this case Reuters and WaPo are cited (but there are many more RS) - claiming this was an acid attack. Subsequent clarification is that this was done with "concentrated vinegar" which as per WaPo "contains a higher percentage of acetic acid than table vinegar and can cause burns". Household vinegar has a small concentration of acid, concentrated household vinegar - a large concentration of acetic acid. Ergo - this is acid.Icewhiz (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Shampoos cause burn. Should those be included in the article. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

In this case we have RS, also following clarification that this was concentrated vinegar, treating this as an acid attack.Icewhiz (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we go by the treatment of RS, not editor. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 00:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

And what source classified continued to classify this as an acid attack after the vinegar revelations? Al-Andalusi (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Updated WaPo article - [58]. And not vinegar, but concentrated vinegar (which has a high proportion of acid), per source: Israeli military and police spokesmen later said the liquid was likely “concentrated vinegar,” which contains a higher percentage of acetic acid than table vinegar and can cause burns.. (at the top of this talk section - copy paste to here).Icewhiz (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

But it doesn't classify it an "acid attack", and there is no indication that this was an acid attack in the sense that the article is talking about. The fact that the police compared this acid with "table vinegar" (in attempt to rationalize the overreaction of the state, and cover up the embarrassing turn of events) should tell you that the event is simply about an overly dramatic family in an overly paranoid state. Al-Andalusi (talk) 22:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It has established relation with acid attack, fwiw. Capitals00 (talk) 05:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it more neutral to simply state what was thrown, i.e. "concentrated vinegar (acetic acid)"? It would be an objective fact.VR _talk 06:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It currently is stated - acid (concentrated vinegar which contains a high percentage of acetic acide and can cause burns). If you want to change the order of parenthesis - e.g. "concentrated vinegar (acetic acid that can cause burns)" - I don't have any particular problem with that phrasing - both are OK. Note that concentrated vinegar is a form of acid (as is any vinegar - it is just a question of the percentage of acetic volume to water - many acids that are used in attacks aren't "100% proof" acids).Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Acid throwing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8576279.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://cgi.unc.edu/uploads/media_items/it-was-like-burning-in-hell-a-comparative-exploration-of-acid-attack-violence.original.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040715191230/http://www.btselem.org/Download/1994_Collaborators_Eng.rtf to http://www.btselem.org/download/199401_collaboration_suspects_eng.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922173913/http://www.iwraw-ap.org/aboutus/pdf/FPvaw.pdf to http://www.iwraw-ap.org/aboutus/pdf/FPvaw.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130417194151/http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/TheCrimnalLaw030413.pdf to http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/TheCrimnalLaw030413.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of event

Nick removed this event from the article. While I agree that there have been many high profile attacks, I don't understand why one would remove one or any of them? Please explain.VR _talk 02:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

It is precisely because there have been so many instances that detailing only one fairly unrepresentative example was misleading. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Acid throwing in UK

Herve Reex should have a look here. There was recently one Acid attack in UK. Read:-

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/london-acid-attack-mary-konye-guilty-of-attack-on-naomi-oni-29944866.html

And not to forget Katie Piper's Incident. OccultZone (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

1500 total? But same source also include, 1000 in India, 300+ In Pakistan, 105+ in UK, 492 in Bangladesh. Contradicting the total stats. So it was removed. OccultZone (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

no, ASTI state 1000 total which includes unreported. And 105 UK is not acid attacks, read the citation.Herve Reex (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

1500 are "unreported", while they include 492 from Bangladesh, 300 from Pakistan. Then 1000 from India. How it makes up 1500? The stat is meaningless. Also BBC's link can lead you to copyright issues. Neither BBC is credible, because a lot of times they copy from here.

There are 600-700 attacks in Bangladesh, by other estimate. [59] You know about these acid attacks? Hong Kong acid attacks, from Hong Kong, In Iran, UK, they have took place as well. Include Russia, Afghanistan. Maybe we can simply from it from lead. OccultZone (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC) The amount of acid attacks has increased steadily to over 600 last year and just in London. They also are appropriately aimed towards men. Xanikk999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Muslim Bias

There are multiple sources on the internet which relate these types of attacks being performed almost exclusively by Muslim men. Yet this Wikipedia article seems to go out of its way to hide this fact, stating locations such as Asia and Bangladesh (Muslim majority). May I ask why? 76.169.75.159 (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Bring a source (WP:RS - reliable source) that discusses acid throwing in the context of religious affiliation (and particularly Muslim affiliation) - and it might be a go. Wikipedia doesn't engage in WP:SYNTH - if others aren't making this connection, neither do we. If no one is making this connection - I suppose you could try writing a journal article on the subject and get it peer reviewed - but this would only go into Wikipedia after publication and only if is a significant enough viewpoint per WP:Weight.Icewhiz (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

At the reverse, the article contains a link to Islam while it looks like the Quran does not deal with acid attack. This just means that there is no direct link to make the acid attack a practice of Islam. Anyway, if there is any indirect link between the religion and acid attack, what would it be?

According to the BBC and the association, acid attack is more related to men, crime, criminal organizations, disagreement and localization: There are more acid attack by inhabitant in UK than in the RoW. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40559973 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/faheem-younus/acid-attacks-are-not-islam_b_1856007.html

As such, it should be more logic to link acid attack to UK rather than to Islam. The link with Islam would be indirect: the numerous londonians who practice acid attack and the numerous londonians who practice Islam would make more probable that practice of acid attack be correlated eventually to practice of Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.42 (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

No mention of religion?

Acid throwing is almost exclusively a Muslim phenomenon but the article doesn’t even touch on it? I’d imagine if anyone even attempted to include this it would be promptly deleted and the editor blocked. We now exist in an Orwellian nightmare where “wrongthink” is muted and the offender shunned. And people wonder why all forms of media are questioned and why the far right is gaining traction all over the globe? Facts are facts, stop avoiding things that make you feel “icky”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.104.54 (talk) 01:06, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

This issue was discussed in the 'Muslim bias' section above. If you have a reliable source linking acid throwing and Islam then fine, but such a claim cannot be made in the article otherwise. Of course, the recent spate of attacks in London have been reliably attributed to non-religious motives such as crime and gang violence. JezGrove (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Ethiopia included?

Message from IP editor regarding removal of Ethiopia from article originally posted to User talk:Rsrikanth05#Acid throwing. Copy-pasting here for discussion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 13:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I edited the section under the header "epidemiology" of acid throwing to remove Ethiopia. Googling "Acid attacks in Ethiopia" brings up two notable results for the first few pages, one in 2007 and another in 2011. Ethiopia does not have a particularly high incidence of acid attacks, and the BBC article of the 2007 attack makes direct reference to that fact. I felt it was prudent to move Ethiopia from the "frequent incidents" category to the "reported incidents" category.

In addition, the PDF used as the source for the "high frequency of acid attacks in Ethiopia" in the section detailing acid attacks in Africa had that exact same BBC article as its own reference as to the high frequency of acid attacks in the country, which explicitly states the contrary; that Ethiopia is not known for a high frequency of this type of attack. Therefore, I removed Ethiopia from that sentence entirely. Would you please restore my edits?

BBC article:
PDF (which references the above BBC article): — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.58.69 (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

I removed all mention of Ethiopia in this article, I am ethiopian and I personally never heard of it happening, but as you mentioned the referenced source does not support this claim. This claim is defamatory at this point. Wikipedia is no place to spread falsehoods if there is a source that can back up that this is happening often or that the country is known for it then discuss this and we can add it back in. until we have an actual source that does not say the opposite it stays out... Mnlk (talk) 17:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

history

• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/can-blame-victorians-todays-acid-attacks/
• https://www.economist.com/britain/2017/07/20/acid-attacks-have-a-long-history-in-britain
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/07/attacks-occurred-uk-200-years-170717114141459.html
• https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/bad-stealing-bacon-why-did-victorians-treat-acid-attacks-so-leniently

--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:36, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Removal of citations to create bias

There is, or was, a citation on here showing that most attacks worldwide are against men. The fact this keeps getting removed shows that the page is being carefully tailored to make male victims disappear - and this is disgusting. The whole page is being carefully re-framed again and again to make it seem like this is a specific attack on all women. Editors bellow me are now claiming acid is a weapon used to attack all women, symbolically. No proof is given. Comments are being deleted. This is a farce. Men Are Human (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 11 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure)​ — Newslinger talk 19:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Acid throwing → Acid attack – Per various sources cited in this article, "acid attack" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME for this article's subject. Steel1943 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. "Acid attack" seems to be the favoured term used in the article's sources, and gets more hits on Google News and Google Books. PC78 (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Clear common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per a above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
• Support per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Acid terror" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Acid terror. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Author

Why the fuck are they constantly going on about Pakistan I'm not your dad (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Different information

Under the country section, the first two paragraphs of the UK section quote vastly different numbers for the same years. This whole article has multiple instances of different information quoted for the same thing as well as sentenced being phrases in confusing ways and paragraphs having no organization, sometimes changing topic mid-sentence without any indication that this has happened. FatherPixels (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Violence against men

There is nothing I can see in the article that says men are targeted because of their sex/gender. Because of this, I have removed the Category:Violence against men and the template. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

¿And women are targeted because of their sex/gender? This seems like an odd assumption to make, acid attacks are often perpetrated by people regardless of gender, to note this as "violence against women" is just as stupid, as it would be as "violence against men", neither gender/sex is immune for it, nor is it common outside of Islamic countries to attack women with acid attacks, in fact a better category would be "women and islam" as it's more cultured than general.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe you miss the point. Female victims are attacked almost exclusively in disputes with men where sexual politics are in play, and the attacker's intent is to establish the dominance of his gender over hers. That makes all such attacks a crime against women. Male victims are attacked for any number of reasons (business, politics, etc.), but never because a woman seeks to relegate all men to subservience, and/or punish one man for refusing to accept a subservient role that his attacker insists he must do, given his gender.

Acid attacks on women are almost always an attack on their entire gender. (Even those with ostensibly political motiviations generally contain gender politics as well, i.e., the victim is a trade unionist [bad enough] AND a woman [worse].) Acid attacks on men are an attack on some non-gender group they belong to, or are perceived to belong to; they are not attacked because they are men. Laodah 19:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not correct. Citation needed. Men have faces too, and men value said faces. Men Are Human (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I find this line of argument difficult to accept. In almost every case I have read about, the victims are attacked for specific personal reasons - typically, they are a relation or spouse of the attacker who has displeased the attacker in some way. If the attacks' sole or even main purpose were to "establish the dominance of his gender over hers" then why not attack any woman at random? Surely that would serve the purpose just as well?

These women are not attacked simply because they are women. They are attacked (however unjustifiably) because of something they have done or not done, or are believed to have done or not done. I believe you are doing them a disservice by misrepresenting the nature of these attacks and attempting to commandeer the subject for some sort of political end. I suspect that any person who would throw acid in a woman's face probably wouldn't hesitate to do the same to any man that displeased him or her. Shiresman (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

This comment engages in textbook victim blaming. Acid throwing is by its nature an attack on the female sex, because of its effect: to disfigure, especially the face; it is an attack on beauty and attractiveness. This is not what you will find in attacks on men. Elizium23 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

If that comment is "textbook victim blaming" then the textbooks clearly need re-writing. Shiresman isn't saying the victims are at fault. He is saying that the perpetrators are motivated by a personal grudge against a specific victim, rather than randomly choosing a target solely on their sex. Iapetus (talk) 09:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Shiresman why are you and others systematically whitewashing all traces of men being attacked from this article? The article used to say that men are statistically the primary victims of this kind of attack and it is clear the 'majority are women' citation is an estimate - one probably based on countries where the majority of reported attacks are on women. I find this to be a gross manipulation of the actual reality of the situation. This entire article is in breach of basically every Wiki rule on neutrality and, frankly, it needs to be rewritten. HadashiBlacksky (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't made any edits to the article - I just posted the above comment on this talk page (and then forgot I had done so, until now). If I had made any edits, it wouldn't have been in an attempt to downplay the effect of acid attacks on men. Are you thinking of someone else? Shiresman (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Men can be victims of acid attacks too, Sergei Filin is only one example.--141.19.228.15 (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The sexism towards men in this talk page is harrowing enough. Let alone the de-legitimizing of issues men face because of that same prejudice showing up in the article itself. Nothing but the double-standards based on sexism support the reasoning of the anti-male users here. Let's not be so hateful as to permit this. Mr.troughton (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Demographic breakdown of suspects in London should be removed

The suspiciously lengthy paragraph detailing the demographics of known suspects and victims in London apparently feeds directly into Nazi/white supremacist narratives, including, but not limited to the infamous 13% "meme" (a lie). Per capita, there is no difference between the frequencies of attacks perpetrated by white Europeans and minorities. Keeping that paragraph up does way more harm than good, but I had the good sense of not removing it until this situation is discussed thoroughly. 201.24.16.21 (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"80% of acid attacks are on women" - Acid Survivors Trust International

So according to the page, Acid Survivors Trust International (ASTi) claims that "80% of acid attacks are on women". I looked into this source [74] and the page no longer exists. Using archive.is, I found a 2014 snapshot of the page (you can find it here: https://archive.is/EXRkM). It's a Reuters article which states:

   "Around 1,500 acid attacks are reported globally each year, 80 percent of them on women, according to the London-based charity Acid Survivors Trust International, which says this is a gross under-estimate of the real total as most victims are scared to speak out."

On the ASTi website, I found a page called "A worldwide problem" (https://www.asti.org.uk/a-worldwide-problem.html). On the page, it claims the same statistics as those given in the Reuters article. However, there is no source that substantiates these claims.

In the Wikipedia article immediately before this statement, there is a statement that states:

   "A 2007 literature review analyzed 24 studies in 13 countries over the past 40 years, covering 771 cases."

The source for this [15] can be read here: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.691.9443&rep=rep1&type=pdf. On the source document, it states "Apart from Bangladesh and Taiwan, a male predominance was reported among victims of chemical assault." Additionally, the paragraph following in the Wikipedia article references source [75], which is actually a duplicate of Reference [15].

The way this section reads is that the 2007 review looked at cases and that the ASTi supports that review, which finds that 80% of attacks are on women (which is untrue according to the review). This section should at minimum be re-organized to keep coherent sources together. A sample would be as follows:

   A 2007 literature review analyzed 24 studies in 13 countries over the past 40 years, covering 771 cases.[15] In Bangladesh, throwing acid has been labeled as a "gender crime", as there is a dominance of female victims who are assaulted by males, for the reason of refusing to marry, or refusing sexual advances.[15] In Jamaica, women throwing acid on other women in relation to fights over male partners is a common cause.[15] In the UK, the majority of victims are men, and many of these attacks are related to gang violence.[24]

   According to the London-based charity Acid Survivors Trust International, 80% of acid attacks are on women, and acid assaults are grossly under-estimated. In some regions, assaults perpetrated on female victims by males are often driven by the mentality "If I can't have you, no one shall."[74]

If we were to be more strenuous with our data, should we even include the last statement? As per Wikipedia, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The following section in the page discusses news organizations and states that news reporting is "generally considered to be reliable statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." The included peer-reviewed published data conflicts which the claim from the Reuters article. This claim originates from a news article, which originates from an organization, which displays zero sources for this information. Should this line even be included? --Colonialdagger (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)