Talk:Rukhmabai

Name

A reliable source to the addition of the "Raut" is highly desirable - none of the court documents seem to use it nor do any contemporary documents available on the net. It is quite clear that her step-father although shown in early records as Ravut dropped its usage in all his later publications like most of the anti-caste reformers of the period. The article is best moved back to its original name if no reliable source is produced. Shyamal (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

How about this? But to be fair I could not find a single book (via google's book search. She seems to be only referred to everywhere by her first name :-( -MayureshK 12:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I am sure you are joking! She herself never used any surname in her professional publishing - for example - I am glad others also noted the irony in putting her husband's name here Shyamal (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Not really, all my "google book" searches for "Rukhmabai Raut" came up empty. As you've rightly pointed out, she's mentioned with her first name pretty much everywhere. Well, as far as I could find. -MayureshK 13:32, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

On the topic of her name, I moved the article because the lead specified her last name was Raut. BUT you are right in that there is no mention of her surname in her own publications/ legal references to her during the case/ other published references (cite/ indexed or otherwise locatable). Also, from her step-father's article it's quite clear that his last name is "Ravut" and not "Raut". The only cite in favour of her last name being the link in my first reply (again). Unfortunately, it's Google that's calling her that and the link comes from a prominent Indian news source. I think we should leave it in for a little bit until we can conclusively find no other supporting source. After which we can go ahead and move it back. Thoughts/ opinions welcome. -MayureshK 14:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Neither Google Doodle nor TOI nor indeed any Indian newspaper counts as a reliable source for such a detail as the name. Major research publications such as by Sudhir Chandra or court documents would be considered reliable here. We can of course wait. Shyamal (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Done

Right, BBC's just published what looks like a better researched article 1 referring to her last as "Raut". Have requested them to help provide a source. Let's see how it goes. -MayureshK 16:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I think this is prompted by the recent normalization of the name by the media. As I said, I think the best option is to use what the subjects themselves used - especially when they have authored works. I am fairly aware (I have examined Rukhmabai in the context of Sakharam Arjun and Indian natural history) of this period, the reformers who were against the institution of caste and their avoidance of caste-linked names. Shyamal (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Redux - User:Shivashree moved the page without citing any reliable sources again. A discussion of any new reliable sources available is obviously relevant in this case. Shyamal (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Caste

What s important is that the lady belonged to a Sutar community of Maharashtra. The surname is not important. The desire to conceal her caste was to protect it from further exploitation.Pathare Prabhu (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Court case

User:Mskadu - you created the section "Court case against her husband Dadaji Bhikaji" - removing the formal case name instead. I hope you realize that the defendant was Rukhmabai and not Dadaji Bhikaji as you imply. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/623704/ Shyamal (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. My intention was to specify that the case was between her and the husband. Does the latest change make more sense? -MayureshK 13:43, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The formal name is "Dadaji versus Rukhmabai" but there is space for more than one case to be covered in this section - the related Phulmoni Dasi case or "Empress v. Hari Mohan Maiti" - there was also a libel case filed by Dhurmaji (see endnote 8) and then there were multiple hearings. Shyamal (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

It does not make sense to use the formal name - it would make no sense to the ordinary reader. As for the other two cases, do you want to making high level copyedits? We can always restructure/ improve as we go along. -MayureshK 18:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

112.196.63.34 (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)died in year 1955

Already done

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

2405:205:158F:3AB4:DCDA:D58:D633:46A7 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2017

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

Re. Changes to Opening Paragraph

Hi @Shyamal, about your edit to the lead Para. IMHO, that's adding a bit too much information to it. Per WP:LEADPARAGRAPH, it needs "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". And I think being too specific is exactly what we are being here.

1. The specifics (e.g. the legal name of the case and the related debates) are already discussed in great deal of detail in the "Restitution of conjugal rights" case by Bhikaji section.
2. The association with the Phulmoni rape case is more so with the act (so rightly included in the Intro of the article) and not Rukhmabai's case itself. This is also why I distinctly pointed to the acts article in the Influence on Age of Consent Act, 1891 section.

Which is why I believe that it does not make sense to feature both these bits in intro para.

So, if it's OK with you, I am going to undo the change? Will wait for your comments before I do, of course. :-)

-MayureshK 10:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I am ok only with the removal of the Phulmoni case but I think it is a pity if you object to the removal of the rest - the summary about her being a pioneer doctor is fine but your summary of the court case does not do justice - I am happy if you can find an alternate summary that clarifies that it was a legal landmark and that split Indian society along multiple lines. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My take on the topic of the "summary of court case" is introductory para is meant to introduce a reader to the subject of the article. We don't need to get into specifics of the case there - the job's achieved in the dedicated section. Also, how does the use of legal parlance "x vs y" add value to a ordinary reader, especially in the intro? -MayureshK 12:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

After some thought on your point re. "split Indian society along multiple lines", I think I agree that it is a significant aspect of her identity. I've made further improvements to the Intro which should hopefully bring out that aspect a bit better? -MayureshK 13:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Assuming we agree that this bit is Done?

Incidentally I would remove most citations based on Indian newspapers and other websites especially those published in the last month - which are patently unreliable and poor research. The lead does not need citations. Shyamal (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

We've already agreed over the point about the articles incorrectly using her last name. Out of curiosity, what else in those articles makes them unreliable and poorly researched? -MayureshK 12:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of the reports have taken their contents from the Wikipedia entry - now what is the reliable source for the date of death of Rukhmabai? A newspaper archive (preferably public) that reported her death or an obituary or biographical book/journal article. What we have here could easily have the potential for being a circular reference - lazy newspaper reporter copies from Wikipedia - Wikipedia cites newspaper. In general there is a very limited role for citing newspapers on Wikipedia, especially for India-related articles whose context is not in the current time. Shyamal (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly around using the ET article as primary cite for her death-date. I was unable to find another source backing that up. I have marked the date with a cite-needed while we look. -MayureshK 15:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)