Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breast Tax

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The policies cited by the delete position have not been adequately supported in terms of identifying what direction the POVFORK is, what the mainstream argument is if it is FRINGE, and NOTINHERITED applies to blanket statements about notability rather than the existence of articles based on shared content. The widespread misapplication of policy here is very suspect, to say the least. bibliomaniac15 03:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POVFORK of Nangeli which has a very dubious historicity and also copies Channar revolt. Does not deserve standalone page given the dubiousness per WP:FRINGE. Wareon (talk) 07:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can't have two pages dealing with the same subject. I note that the page was already redirected by Winged Blades of Godric, but the redirect was reverted without any sensible reason. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article seems to be about the general topic, and would stand on its own well-sourced feet even if all the Nangeli material was removed. I have no comment about the notability of Nangeli here, as this is not an AfD about that article. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Nangeli's notability is important to note here because all of the sources talk only about Nangeli, than Breast tax. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As it currently stands, this article simply repeats what is found in Channar revolt, and almost all of that is verbatim. It is pointless to have such repetition, and it can lead to forking. If the Breast Tax is independently notable, then there should be references about it that are independent of the Channar revolt of Nangeli, and it should be mentioned only briefly in the Channar revolt page, letting anyone interested follow the redirect. If sources only talk about it in those contexts, it should be Redirected to Channar revolt. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 42.106.4.156 (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG since all sources discuss the village legend Nangeli. Subject lacks notability on its own. Azuredivay (talk) 01:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Breast Tax or Mulakkaram is about a tax legislation in the Kingdom of Travancore passes WP:GNG clearly sourced in WP:RS .Further there are sources in the Malayalam language and scholarly sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that the subject lacks coverage independent of Nangeli and Channar revolt, however I don't see any WP:HISTRS covering this subject or Nangeli, that means all of this could be recent hocus pocus. Lorstaking (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable as a tax. Plenty of reliable sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, All sources are about the story of Nageli, there are no WP:HISTRS sources. One source in the article says, "We can’t teach students about Nangeli’s sacrifice in textbooks yet because there is no exact date for it, and needs more evidence". The whole article is about it and Channar revolt, which have it's own article. No need for this redundancy. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and resolve through informed discussion. The interrelationship (and/or validity) of the three articles mentioned and whether all or some should remain standalone articles is too complicated and subject-specific to resolve through a "keep/delete" vote under an arbitrary seven day deadline. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic seems to pass GNG, there are reliable in-depth sources, and as for Nangeli, the topics are related but distinct. Historical/legendary character versus real historical event (legislation, whatever). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• For passing GNG you have to be independent of the main subject which is "Nangeli" here. You should show sources which prove that they are independent of Nangeli. The historicity of "Breast tax" is dubious. Sources have been greatly misused on this article, such as Cohn who's book never mentioned "breast tax". Don't just rely on the bogus look of the article, better look into the article and assess the sources. As Lorstaking mentioned above, this is all "recent hocus pocus" with no coverage in academic literature. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether the tax was real or fictitious, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate question as to whether it's notable...so it was either a notable, historical law or a notable legend/hoax. Also whether it is best discussed just in the context of the Nangeli legend or as a separate standalone topic is really a question of merging/redirection at best, not outright deletion. As I said above, this really needs to be resolved through normal editing and discussion, the article development questions raised are not appropriate for AFD, per WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG and per my comment above about source falsification on the article. I don't see any mention of this allegedly historical practice in academic literature. Mohanabhil (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mainly because of lack of independent coverage and lack of historicity per BhaskaraPattelar. This is sufficiently a POVFORK of the main article. --Yoonadue (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm recusing myself from !voting as I came here as a result of an IP canvass; I'll leave it up to whoever closes this to evaluate the appropriateness (or not) of my comment. That said, aside from what is in the article already, there are a plethora of peer-reviewed materials which discuss the tax.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Whether this should be part of a larger article on gender, caste and conversion in 19th Century southern India or perhaps caste structures in Travancore, it is clearly a separate issue from that of Nangeli or the Channar revolt...none of which should be discussed here, as AfD is not ...wait for it... clean up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source no.1 is about Channar revolt. Source no.2 has no mention of a "breast tax".[1] Source no.3 is from 2018 and is just a passing mention. Source no.4 is also just a passing mention. It is absolutely possible that a "folk legend" has been around for more than a few decades but ultimately it lacks significant coverage in reliable sources without depending on Nangeli. Wareon (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per BhaskaraPattelar and WP:POVFORK. The apparent lack of historicity of this whole subject cannot be ignored. desmay (talk) 18:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep -- I note that the first three references are very modern publications, making it clear that he topic has recently been in the media. Whether historically it happened on not, the fact that it is believed in the mainstream media and discussed is quite enough to warrant an article. This is a wider topic than Nangeli or the Channar revolt, so that having an article is justified. There appear to be a number of WP:RS. The basis of the nom appears to be IDONOTLIKEIT, which is no basis for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is utter nonsense, given the dubious historicity of the subject depending on the notability of a folk legend named Nangeli and the subject has been already debunked by another modern scholar. Rumors and lies are also "believed in the mainstream media", but Wikipedia is not for righting great wrongs. This is not a wider topic than Nangeli or Channar revolt, but solely depends on the notability of Nangeli and Channar revolt that is why there is no need to retain this POVFORK. Either way, you don't have any sources to support your highly illogical views. Wareon (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Pillai's piece from The Hindu is anything but a "debunking"; it confirms the existence of the mulakaram, among many other issues. "When Nangeli offered her breasts on a plantain leaf to the Rajah’s men, she demanded not the right to cover her breasts, for she would not have cared about this ‘right’ that meant nothing in her day. Indeed, the mulakkaram had little to do with breasts other than the tenuous connection of nomenclature. It was a poll tax charged from low-caste communities, as well as other minorities. Capitation due from men was the talakkaram — head tax — and to distinguish female payees in a household, their tax was the mulakkaram — breast tax. The tax was not based on the size of the breast or its attractiveness, as Nangeli’s storytellers will claim, but was one standard rate charged from women as a certainly oppressive but very general tax....When Nangeli stood up, squeezed to the extremes of poverty by a regressive tax system, it was a statement made in great anguish about the injustice of the social order itself. Her call was not to celebrate modesty and honour; it was a siren call against caste and the rotting feudalism that victimised those in its underbelly who could not challenge it. She was a heroine of all who were poor and weak, not the archetype of middle-class womanly honour she has today become. But they could not admit that Nangeli's sacrifice was an ultimatum to the order, so they remodelled her as a virtuous goddess, one who sought to cover her breasts rather than one who issued a challenge to power. The spirit of her rebellion was buried in favour of its letter, and Nangeli reduced to the sum of her breasts." The woman who cut off her breasts The Hindu, 17 February 2017. As above, whether this article should be renamed to cover broader issues related to caste, servitude and taxation in Travancore, whether it should remain Breast Tax, or something else ... is a perfectly reasonable discussion ... just not something for AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As long as the subject is already rid of significant coverage in history sources it does not deserve a separate page per WP:NOTINHERITED. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete primarily because the sources seem to be focused on Channar revolt and Nangeli and don't explore this particular topic independently and in detail. As it says on WP:SIGCOV, "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article". Kerberous (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the topic seems to have received a fair coverage in Nangeli. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG on its own as described above. Already covered on Nangeli. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm frankly a bit mystified by those saying that this is fully covered in Nangeli so doesn't deserve a separate article. So what? This aticle is actually more notable than that one, given it's about an unusual historical tax and that's about a person who may be mythical. Neither is it fully covered in Channar revolt, given it persisted long after that revolt. It's well-sourced and I'm having difficulty making sense of the delete votes. I'm always a bit suspicious of AfDs where canvassing has gone on. What's the issue here? Someone (or some people) seems very keen on getting it deleted. I'd be very interested to know why. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Goldsztajn. Neither Nangeli or Channar revolt cover it in full. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, largely per Goldsztajn and Necrothesp. The number of sources covering this is large; many of them discuss the topic generally, and not only with respect to the two other articles being discussed here; and whether or not the concept was "real", when substantial sources exist, that is a debate we need to cover, not purge altogether. The "this is a hoax" !votes are, therefore, not based in policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.