User talk:Maheshkumaryadav/Pink sandbox

Looking at the sources:

1)"Godrej ‘Nupur Jagruti’- Dahej Ke Khilaf Ek Awaz" Doesn't actually verify that dowry is called "dahej". In any event, I question that phrase. I'm gathering that "dahej" is a translation of dowry into some language of India. Which one? Is the same word used across India, by all people? If it is, it's actually not necessary to find a citation, but, if that's just one language's translation, I'd just leave it out.

2) You don't need a citation for the word "jewelry". Instead, what you need is a citation for the whole sentence that speaks in general about dowries. This, actually is a key point. You can't use a single, specific case as evidence for a general claim. What I mean is, in this article, all I know for sure is that one specific family used jewelry to pay for a dowry--I have no idea if this is common, or, if, in fact, this is a unique occurrence. This is actually a key lesson you need to learn, because I saw the same problem on your "Corruption" articles: one specific situation can't (usually) be used as evidence for a general claim. Or, at least, when you do, you have to be careful how you phrase the sentence.

3) This looks to me like you completely misreading the source. Here is the relevant line: "Palak went one more step further and facilitated the hastamelap-a Hindu marriage ritual wherein bride's parents put her hand into that of the groom's as kanyadaan- evoking an emotional round of applause from all present on th occasion." I don't see anything about dowries, about giving gifts, etc--instead, all I see is an act of holding hands. How is that related to this article?

I'll look at more later; feel free to respond to these if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The next day

More looking at sources:

4) (nationalrighttolife) Very much not a reliable source. That is, instead, a hyper-partisan source whose purpose is to provide information to promote a pro-life agenda. That means that we cannot rely on them to provide reliable information. But even if that were a reliable source, it wouldn't support the sentence as you wrote it. The "financial burden" part is a quotation from "Dr Pascoal Carvalho", and thus, is just his opinion. Since we have no reason to believe he is a particular expert on dowries or the financial system in India, including his opinion would violate WP:UNDUE.

5) ("Govt looks to tighten abortion norms") A reliable source, but it doesn't talk about dowries. When you are adding sources to an article, you don't need to verify things that are already verified in other articles. The problem is that if you add that source here, it looks like you're implying that that source makes a connection between dowries and female infanticide/foeticide, which it does not.

6) (twocircles.net) Not a reliable source. For websites that are not clearly mainstream newspapers or magazines, you should check their "About page" if they have one. You can see this site's about page Here. You'll see that they admit to being a partisan source, and that they don't follow editorial policy WP would consider necessary to be recognized as an RS. Don't get me wrong: their mission is wonderful, but Wikipedia doesn't recognize sources of that type. This is the real source of Wikipedia's systemic bias, but RS is, alas, not flexible in this instance.

7) (Census) This is good, reliable source, but, again, it doesn't belong here, since it has no connection to dowries.

8) (AFP) This is excellent. This one source, actually, covers most of the last 4, since it clearly links foeticide and dowries. So, what we want to do is find a way to replace all of those with this source (or others that cover the issue equally well).

Give me some feedback on this and the section above. Let me know if this is making sense, or ask questions, or whatever. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I will make changes as per the points mentioned.

What is the the easier way to add content to wikipedia ?

a) Writing content yourself and finding references. It does not help and the references are difficult to find and does not specifically address the content that we have written.

b) Searching for keywords and writing the content found is search in your own words. But in that case we may not find exactly what info we want to give.

I am also reading Wikipedia:Starting an article to find more. Thanks Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 07:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]