Talk:Cattle theft in India

All the best and goodbye for now

Dear @Vanamonde93:. I believe I have accomplished what I set out here to do. It was a mistake to get into the smuggling bit, which carries no interest for me. I will therefore be bowing out for the second and final time. I'm glad I was able to make the graphs. I have also come to admire your all round common sense. It reminds me of something I wrote in the page Mandell Creighton, but failed to heed myself. (I was really quoting someone who said, "He possesses commonsense to a degree that borders on genius.") Maybe I'll go back to working on the Creighton page, which was at FAC, but then I had to go away somewhere and withdrew it. Anyway, all the best. Be seeing you somewhere I'm sure. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: My apologies for a late response. I am sorry to see you go, and the page will be poorer for your absence. I can, however, understand your decision and your frustration, and I sympathize. Best of luck. Vanamonde (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

F&f: Please no continued casting aspersions, particularly after your goodbye. Vanamonde warned you above about 'toning your language down' a few times already. Apply rules and Vanamonde's comments to yourself, as much as you hand out your silly lectures to others. We have waited a week already, and Vanamonde seems too busy / time limited. I have already welcomed him, and I invite others, to collaborate with me on this article. No one owns wikipedia, neither Vanamonde, nor you nor I nor anyone. Everyone is free to edit. Many of my latest edits are just reviewing and applying the consensus above, such as about sources that make 'passing mention', etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not say goodbye to restoring removal of content that had been agreed upon in the presence of the presiding admin. The article is still on my watchlist. I want to make sure what is agreed upon stays. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The latest agreement is not to include sources that make a passing mention. Avari makes a passing mention, as do others, and all these need to be removed per Vanamonde's comment above! Vanamonde did not discuss The Independent nor IBT article above, so your removal of content from them was improper. Wikipedia articles are not frozen to some interpretation, the articles continuously evolve through collaboration and as additional or new sources/information become known. Everyone is welcome and free to edit wikipedia articles in order to improve them. If you disagree, please feel free to take it to DRN. Good luck, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Sarah: Vanamonde said, "There are obviously a lot of sources discussing smuggling. Most of these sources either do not mention theft at all, or mention it in passing. It would not be entirely appropriate for us to use these statements in Wikipedia's voice. All I am seeing support for at the moment is something like "government authorities and local residents in areas surrounding Bangladesh have stated that frequent cattle-smuggling across the border from India is causing an increase in cattle theft." Really that's about all we can say. If the use of a certain source hinges on the meaning of "rustling", I do not think it appropriate for us to use it." In one spectacular edit of 1750 bytes you have removed edits that took much time and work to agree upon and add to the article. Again, Vanamonde's statement was about smuggling. He did not give you a free hand to interpret in your own idiom what is passing and what is not and to apply it to statements that say nothing about smuggling. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have neither removed nor changed nor added beyond what Vanamonde suggested about the five sources in section above. Rules on sources about "passing mention" apply to all sides, and NPOV is important! We can't say, nor does Vanamonde imply, that it is okay to use sources with 'passing mention' that you added to this article but it is not okay for smuggling or those proposed by other editors! I already made this point in the section above. Let Vanamonde explain and discuss it. FWIW, several of the sources you added have 'passing mention' of cattle theft, in contrast to some of the 5 sources above which have more substantial mention as evidenced by quotes above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes you have. You have removed Vanamonde's own edit, "A 2013 report by Gardiner Harris's in the Delhi Journal of The New York Times stated that cattle theft had increased in recent times in New Delhi, linked to an increase in the consumption of meat among Indians. The meat was primarily chicken, but included beef. Harris argued that cattle were left free to roam the streets, making them easy targets." (see him make it here). What did you replace his sentence with? It is, "A 2013 report by Gardiner Harris's in the Delhi Journal of The New York Times stated that cattle theft had increased in recent times in New Delhi, linked to an increase in the consumption of meat among Indians," thereby leaving out the biggest doozy in Mr Harris's flight of fancy, "beef." (Let me remind you what Gardiner Harris said, "... increasingly affluent Indians develop a taste for meat, even the flesh of cows, which are considered sacred in Hinduism. Criminals round up some of the roughly 40,000 cattle that wander the streets of this megacity and sell them to illegal slaughterhouses located in villages not far away. ... Behind the cattle rustling is a profound shift in Indian society. Meat consumption — chicken, primarily — is becoming acceptable even among Hindus. ... Much of the illicit beef is probably sold as buffalo, an easy way to hide a sacrilegious act. But sometimes it makes its way to meat sellers in Delhi whose cellphone numbers are passed around in whispers. Steaks can be ordered from these illicit vendors in transactions that are carried out like drug deals.") You did not stop there. You took out the sentences, from The Hindu, which were also agreed to by Vanamonde, and which seemed to contradict Mr Harris: "According to The Hindu newspaper, analysis of data published by India's National Sample Survey 2016 shows that less than one per cent of Hindus in the Hindi belt consume beef or buffalo meat. Over the ten year period, 1999-2000 to 2011-2012, the consumption of beef or buffalo meat by Hindus in India declined from 19 million to 12.5 million. And most of all you took out Roshan Kishore dramatic statistic: "According to Roshan Kishore, writing in Live Mint, analysis of data published by India's National Crime Records Bureau shows that the proportion of cattle theft in overall theft in India declined during the period 1990–2014 both in the number of incidents reported and the value of the property taken. " Seriously what is going on? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

References

F&f: You now misrepresent what I wrote! I wrote, "I have neither removed nor changed nor added beyond what Vanamonde suggested about the five sources in section above." After misunderstanding or misrepresenting me, you post this TEXTWALL. You provide an edit diff from July that is unrelated to the 5 Bangladesh-related smuggling sources, and you ignore weeks of discussion in between. No need to repeat that discussion and the evolving consensus, please see above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Please lock down the article until such time as ...

... Sarah Welch tells us what it is she is attempting to do. @Vanamonde93:, @RegentsPark: I would like to request you to lock down the article in this version of 12 August, which is devoid of all the other extraneous text Sarah Welch has added unilaterally. Best regards and good night, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I will respond in detail above when I have the time and energy to do so. A quick response, though, is that I cannot use the administrative tools on this, as I have been too involved on the content. All I can do is to use my position to mediate disputes, but even that only works to the extent that folks are willing to listen: I have no veto power, or additional authority, as such. Vanamonde (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose the revert. I have invited Vanamonde to revise, after F&f said good bye and before my edits today. If we revert, we should revert all edits by F&f last week as well. F&f edits were a leap and misunderstanding of what Vanamonde states and what the consensus is. Best not to take sides and freeze the article with the bias introduced by F&f. Better still, I invite Vanamonde and others again to collaborate and improve this article with a consistent application of the same rules and standards to all sides. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You "oppose" the revert? And there are only three people here? The mere act of uttering "oppose" has no meaning on Wikipedia. If an admin decides to roll it back and lock it down, he or she would be looking for reasons. Thus far I only see sentences of the sort, "F&f edits were a leap and misunderstanding of what Vanamonde states and what the consensus is" Now let's see ...: "were a leap and misunderstanding of what Vanamonde states." I'm having a hard time comprehending your language so pardon me if I misunderstand you further. In the English language when you say, "A leap of faith," or "a leap of the imagination," it is the faith or imagination that is doing the leaping. Here, however, what Vanamonde has said (note present perfect here) is not doing any leaping. For not only had he agreed with my reason for adding some sentences, he had added some himself and well in the past, requiring a present perfect, and not a present simple. He has unequivocally supported the edits I have added, saying, "I find that acceptable. I'd suggest removing the words "However" and "Further", as they add an editorial voice that isn't necessary, given that the meaning is clear without them. These analyses, though, need to be in the article." And you seem to be making a cottage industry of removing these very edits and then defending their removal in posts whose syntax is sinking in the Slough of Banal (with apologies to John Bunyan). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Text from Talk:Raksha Bandhan of relevance here

The following text was redacted by user:Ms Sarah Welch from a talk page post written by me and addressed to her at Talk:Raksha Bandhan:

Do you remember the graphs from the Cattle theft in India page? Do you remember your repeatedly wanting to change a graph which showed mostly monotonically decreasing numbers from 1953 to 2015 with a graph of the last five years, during which there was a slight rise, but which by the change of scale was giving the visual appearance of a catastrophic crisis of theft. You were insinuating an impending doom of cattle theft. Did you tell us what has happened since? No. Well the numbers have stabilized. See below

The above graphs show: (a) the amount of cattle theft in India per 100,000 people, also called the rate, during the years 1953–2016 (shown in colour seagreen) and (b) the share (as percentage) of cattle theft in total major (cognizable) crime during the same period (shown in colour orchid). Note the last two number in (a) 0.70 (2015), 0.70(2016), (b)0.30 (2015), 0.30 (2016). (Here was the text not redacted, still in Raksha Bandhan.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)