Talk:Sati (practice)

Survey

• Yes. Scholarly sources on the subject make it abundantly clear that the practice has declined from its prevalence in previous centuries, even while it has not completely disappeared. Two examples: "Whatever the reason, sati has not disappeared completely. While relatively few in numbers..." and " Today, sati appears to have become exceedingly rare." NPOV requires us to document both these details. I am not fussed about whether this goes in the first sentence, or the second, following a definition: but erasing it completely from the lead is the implication that the practice continues unabated, which is completely unsupported by sources. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• No – The first sentence should be unambiguous and primarily identify the subject, when ('is'), and what it is ('a Hindu practice'), as per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The descriptor regarding its comparative frequency, whether contemporary or historical, should not be included there. Zalaraz (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. The "largely historical" wording is the only one that is neutral and gives proper due weight to the facts. The "No" side's argument hinges on a minor style guideline (MOS:LEADSENTENCE) while ignoring core policy like NPOV. Arguing we can't use "historical" because a few rare, isolated cases still exist is an overly literal reading that actively misleads the reader. This same flawed, literal-minded approach is why they are misrepresenting the Sharma source by cherry-picking a quote that's the opposite of the author's point. It's sad that an RfC was needed, forced by disruptive reverting of the long-standing stable version and a refusal to engage with (WP:IDHT) the valid policy arguments that have been made repeatedly. Longewal (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  @Longewal: Two points: first, while I agree broadly, I do think the unqualified "historical" would be inappropriate. Second, would you be open to including "largely historical" in the second sentence? I framed the RfC as I did because that is the status-quo version, but I think stylistically it's not unreasonable to define it in the first sentence and describe its incidence and legality in the second. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

  It should be in the opening sentence. Even the RS sources currently cited in the article when defining the term clearly call out the practice as "obsolete" or "historical" when introducing the term. So the opening sentence omitting this fact would be misleading and incomplete. I have other issues with the current opening sentence around inclusion of "alive" and the clunkiness introduced by going into the volunteer vs. I volunteer nature of the act, but I don't want to derail this discussion. Longewal (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

  Remove these wholesale aspersions immediately. Zalaraz (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see anything that rises to the level of WP:ASPERSIONS here, Zalaraz. Longewal's description of your interpretation of the content and policy issues certainly isn't very charitable or diplomatic, but it does seem to be their honest view. They did imply disruption on your part with how you've approached the content dispute, but there too they are expressing a your-mileage-may-vary opinion and didn't suggest that you were acting in bad faith so much as not responding the policy arguments.

  That said, longewal, I would highly suggest that you follow WP:FOC scrupulously from here, as those important content considerations you cite will only get lost in muddy water if discussion begins to center on user conduct. If either of you has complaints about the other in that regard, WP:ANI would be the place to voice them, but I don't think it's called for in this instance, and I would urge you to be mindful of the possibility of a WP:BOOMERANG. Either way, let's get back to the pertinent content issues. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Good advice and well taken. I called out disruptive user behavior because this RfC is basically shifting the burden on seeking consensus on the wrong side of the argument. The "largely historical" wording was the WP:STABLE version. Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on those seeking to remove it to demonstrate a new consensus. It's evident that Vanamonde93 took the high-road when he initiated this procedural action. Longewal (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, as I mentioned previously, leaving out the descriptors "largely historical" gives the misleading impression that the practice continues to be a widespread phenomenon as it was in the past, when in fact, the modern documented cases are not only rare but also illegal. Reliable scholarship describes sati as a practice that has declined with isolated events in recent times, so the lead should accurately reflect this per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE. EM (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, include. (Summoned by bot) I wouldn't say that the lead is going to be made or broke by inclusion or absence of this descriptor in the very first sentence, but on the balance I do believe it is an appropriate element there. I do not agree with Longewal that MOS:LEADSENTENCE is a mere "minor style guideline" here: it's pretty universally accepted as the default guidance on this topic. However, I also disagree with the position that the "largely historical" descriptor is out of sync with that guidance. Afterall, the very first sentence of that guideline reads "The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where." (emphasis in the original). On the whole, describing this as a long-declining and only marginally extant practice seems like relevant information for the highest level initial description. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Oh, it is worth noting however that my perspective on the inquiry is contingent on the presumption that the description can be robustly cited to reliable sources, and does not arise even a little out of WP:original research or WP:synthesis of the sources. If not already done, there should be a presentation of sources directly on point for just how much the practice has declined / how absent it is in a contemporary context. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Yes as per User:Vanamonde93's points above. I agree with User:Snow Rise that the descriptor is in keeping with lead sentence guidelines. Currently I feel that my preference would be to keep it in the first sentence, but I would be open to considering inclusion in the second sentence if I can see an example of the proposed wording. I think that the "largely historical" nature of the practice is made clear by sources provided by Vanamonde93 here, and others above, and cited quotes in the article currently ("widespread in India at one time" from , and "cases of sati have diminished dramatically" although it still "occurs even in the present time" can be added to the existing quote from ). Here is another example of how sources have framed the topic, from : "There prevailed in India a customary rite" (using the past tense), and "during this period [early-mid 19th century] that sati was abolished so that in the subsequent period it acquired a somewhat lower profile [in the consciousness/rhetoric of the Indo-Western encounter]. It, however, continued to play an interesting polemical role". More sources can be found and quoted as needed. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
• Yes per what scholarly reliable sources on the subject say (as shown by Vanamonde93 and Avantiputra7)—the practice has become obsolete today, in fact, so rare is it now that even when it happens in an obscure village or small town it makes national and international headlines (ironically, of course, this same media coverage, which usually itself also notes the rarity of the practice, is being used to argue against its obsolete nature). Agree also with Snow Rise, that inclusion is completely in sync with MOS:LEADSENTENCE (not only that, I’d even argue it is actually required in the lead sentence because of it, and also per NPOV and DUE as EM has shown). --UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

  Dozens and dozens of repeated acts of this practice does not make it "obsolete". When hundreds of temples exist glorifying this practice, it is not "obsolete". When there have been cases of politicians coming out in support of Sati, it does not mean the practice is "obsolete". Regardless of the fact that it has declined in its prominence in recent decades, it had seen waves of highs and lows throughout its history, something I had already stated in the above discussion. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is written based on what WP:RS say, not on WP:OR by editors. Sophie Gilmartin, a scholar, writes in this journal article published by Cambridge University Press, "Suttee, or sati, is the obsolete Hindu practice in which a widow burns herself upon her husband's funeral pyre." [emphasis mine] Per WP:SOURCETYPES, scholarly sources are usually the most reliable. Unless you can produce a source that says that sati is not largely historical, it is OR, which, of course, carries no weight. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  See also this post at CCHR of Utrecht University (which as a source though reliable, is less so than Gilmartin's article, I should note), "Sati, an obsolete Hindu practice of widows burning themselves alive—willing or unwilling—on the funeral pyres of their husbands was first encountered by the British in India shortly after their arrival." [boldface mine] UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  And also this chapter by Risa Whitson, another scholar, in a book published by Routledge, where she writes "While this practice [Sati] was never widespread, and is now obsolete, it was nonetheless at the center of discussions around Indian culture and tradition during the last century-and-a-half." [boldface mine] UnpetitproleX (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  You are not going to make any sense if you are going to cite the sources that are not addressing the dozens of cases that have happened during the last few decades. Your sources fail WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. If you can find scholarly sources that discuss the existence of the 21st century Sati incidents and still call the practice "obsolete", then you can provide them here. Orientls (talk) 09:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  The Whitson chapter is from 2017. That's fairly recent. But if you want more recent sources that use 'obsolete' for Sati, we have Wenzel and Risal's chapter in this book from 2024, published by Oxford University Press, which calls Sati "obsolete and not really present in the recent public discourse" (p. 297), and this book by Beschi Jeyaraj from 2023, published by Lit Verlag, which says on page 74 "Sati is an obsolete funeral custom where a widow immolates herself on her husband's pyre." I'm not inclined to believe that scholars writing in 2024, 2023, 2017 etc. are unaware of the few recent cases. Besides, I still see no sources, let alone scholarly ones, which say that sati is not largely historical. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• No - Scholarly sources make it very clear that the practice is still happening. Read Sati (practice)#Current situation. To downgrade the extent of the practice would seem nothing more than whitewashing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Per the scholarly sources cited in this thread, the practice is predominantly defined as "obsolete" or "former." Omitting this context implies it is a current, widespread practice, which raises significant WP:NPOV concerns. Using isolated contemporary reports to contradict the broad scholarly consensus that the practice is historical is a form of WP:SYNTH. Longewal (talk) 06:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• No - MOS:LEADSENTENCE as it is not the most important or characterising aspect of the practice. The claim that it is "largely historical" can be covered in subsequent sentences, but putting that in the first sentence pushes a POV that downplays the extent of it. Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  I don't know: a single digit of documented occurrences over the last 40 years from a culture of well over 1.1 billion today sure seems to justify the "largely" there. I agree that's it's not sheer arithmetic considering the nature of the act, but that's still a vanishingly small number as compared against those at the height of the practice. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:33, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  Cannibalism also does not happen regularly but we dont call it historical. A number of incidents have happened in India since 1947, as such it is not a historical practice. The source states "The practice usually occurs now in parts of northern and central India, though there may be more, unreported incidents." Given the underreporting, my point strengthens. Chronos.Zx (talk) 11:48, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  That quoted text immediately follows this: "While relatively few in numbers, there have a few instances of sati in Rajasthan (1987), Utter Pradesh (2006) and Madhya Pradesh (2002 and 2006)." The author is noting that Sati is rare now, but isolated incidents continue to happen (and notes four cases, while saying more, unreported cases may have happened)—which is more in line with what SnowRise is saying rather than what you're claiming here. This is the second time you have tried to misrepresent this particular source. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  There is no misrepresentation there. If you truly believe that, in this case, we are supposed to treat the word "may" as indicative of a false claim, despite the Indian judiciary making mockery of itself by being too favorable towards the preparators of Sati, then you are only engaging in POV pushing as already evident from your edits here. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  UnpetitproleX, I appreciate the support for my observation, but let's please avoid the implication of bad faith approach wherever possible. I am not won over by the the 'no' arguments shared thus far either, but I also don't think this issue is one on which reasonable minds cannot disagree.

  Chronos, I don't find the cannibalism argument compelling, mostly for reasons of false equivalence; cannibalism is not a practice of a particular idiosyncratic cultural origin, but rather has existed across cultures for as long as the species has existed and has many different distinct etiologies. Sati is a particular cultural practice of a particular society of a particular period. Cannibalism will doubtless be around well after any one alive now has turned to dust. It also occurs at a much higher rate than the phenomena to which you compare it; indeed, some form of it probably occurs somewhere in the world every day, even in contemporary times.

  Meanwhile, let's say we accept your speculation that there are additional occurrences of sati--in fact let's absurdly super-charge that presumption and pretend the number of known cases was an undercount by a factor of 5: that would still make for about one act of sati a year per however many hundreds of millions of Hindu men die in that same year. Again, as an that RfC respondent with no previous exposure to the dispute just trying to apply a straight forward reading of the sourcing to the content issue, that sure seems to qualify the "largely" part of the "largely historical".

  Besides, that argument misapplies the standard editorial process here. This is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS decision; we are not here to speculate about other articles or why their local editors might have adopted the approach to content that they did. Our job is to apply the relevant content policies as they read (and thus represent broader community consensus) to the sourcing and facts here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• No: We describe something by what it is, not by what it isn’t, and describing something by its prominence falls into the latter category. Would it be encyclopedic to describe female genital mutilation, child marriage, witch hunt, human sacrifice, or any other such heinous practice by emphasizing its prominence? None of their articles do so; they simply describe each subject for what it is. This Wikipedia convention isn’t limited to such extreme practices either. Even articles like slavery or monarchy do not describe these topics as "historical" in their lead sentences. When such a convention is consistently applied all across Wikipedia, why should we make a single exception for this one article? I agree with others in this discussion that if this RfC were to pass, it would absolutely be a violation of MOS:LEADSENTENCE, but also a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:RGW. Also, if this were to pass, should we then begin discussions for the other thousands of such articles dealing with practices such as this, which do not call it any variant of "historical" in its lead sentence? To me, this whole dispute just seems like a way for some editors to try and downplay this practice. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  @EarthDude: Each of the articles you link (except FGM, which has not declined in incidence) explicitly and prominently covers the decline of the phenomenon in the lead. The dispute here has seen one group of editors pushing a lead version that did not cover incidence at all, thereby implying Sati continues to be practiced at the same frequency it was historically, which is an NPOV violation. If you wish to propose a lead version that includes incidence information but not in the first sentence, I'm quite open to that, as I note above: please propose such. If you are advocating for excluding the incidence altogether from the lead, then your examples are, in fact, counter-examples. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 My main issue comes with this being stated in the lead sentence. In the examples I have given above, it is also stated that those practices declined, just not in the lead sentence. I am perfectly fine with including Sati's decline elsewhere in the lead. Also, I want to ask SnowRise what makes the decline so exceptional, in comparison to all of these countless other practices, that its inclusion in the lead sentence won't constitute NPOV and DUE violations? Having read the entirity of the discussion, no one who has supported the proposal has said anything convincing on why the decline of Sati being in the literal lead sentence is in any way neutral or due. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  @EarthDude: This RfC has always been about whether some descriptor of relative incidence is included early in the lead, because in the month prior to it there was extensive edit-warring to remove any such mention. As such my position in the RfC has not changed: and if your "no" is explicitly for the first sentence alone, you should make that clear in your position. I don't particularly care where in the lead the incidence is mentioned: it is the complete removal that is untenable. This, and the arguments below that using "chiefly" in place of "largely", are a great example of why this needed substantive discussion rather than edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

"To me, this whole dispute just seems like a way for some editors to try and downplay this practice." That is not the sense I get: I may be an FRS respondent/latecomer, but I did review all of the previous discussion, and my impression is that most of those who have advocated for maintaining this language feel it is the most dispassionate way of presenting the topic. I'm fairly certain most of them would argue it is your argument that is the emotive and WP:RGW one. Personally I would argue that neither side's position is being enhanced by getting into those weeds. But for what it's worth, I think the act is an abomination knotted up with chauvinism, dogma, and ignorance, and I still think it's probably most accurate to describe it as a vanishing practice.

As to your comparisons to other topics, I would direct you to the point I just raised with Chronos above: these seem deeply reflective of false equivalence in terms of the cultural universality, historical breadth and present-day prevalence when compared against sati. In any event, we're not here to re-litigate every content decision made on those articles, nor do we consider the implications for other articles when we have a WP:LOCALCON discussion about particular content. Our job is merely to apply the PAGs as written to this particular editorial decision on this article.SnowRise ^{let's rap}

• No - To provide further information to something that has already been said above, I would say it is not just the Indian judiciary but Indian government officials have been also biased when it comes to tackling Sati practice. Another such incident is from 1999 which is unanimously regarded as Sati incident, however, Indian "Police refuse to acknowledge it as a sati." Since the nature of hiding Sati incidents is very evident, it is makes more sense to treat Sati as an ongoing practice. Orientls (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Yes, but with "chiefly" in place of "largely," a change I just made (as I was not aware of the RfC. :) ). Chiefly, as I mention in my edit summary, connotes primarily or most importantly. It describes what looms large in sum total of attention in the literature. This is also the consensus version that I had written and had remained in the article for quite some time, I haven't checked though. Largely, which is too weak, connotes in a large proportion or number of cases. It gets into the business of counting, which is problematic in pre-modern Indian history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Yes I am surprised this has come to an RfC. The (largely) historical nature of the practice is noted by virtually every 3PARTY source for this under the sun: dictionaries, encyclopedias, scholarship and what have you (a review of this can be seen here ) and this has been true for more than a century. Our article as such has stated the same ever since it was first created more than two decades ago (). Past consensus for this article affirms the same. To change this then would require disproportionate evidence to the contrary, I don't this has been adduced (sources noting sporadic instances of it is not it). As such I see no reason to dither from past consensus here. Gotitbro (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  "Disproportionate evidence" is nicely put, Gotitbro. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Yes. The fact that the practice is largely historical gives vitally important information to the reader; it answers "what or who the subject is, and often when or where" per MOS:FIRST. WP:RS state that the practice is not relatively common in the modern day, so that is highly important and relevant information to include. If not in the first sentence, it should be somewhere in the lead paragraph.Katzrockso (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. Per u:Katzrockso and others - it's notable that it's not widespread now. Alaexis_¿question? 20:52, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• An aspect of this RfC which is confusing and, perhaps, problematic is that the status quo consensus was for inclusion of the "largely historical" character of the practice. Thus, the new consensus being sought is for exclusion of it, but this RfC is framed in a way that appears to seek consensus for a wording for which consensus already exists. Why so? It should be the other way round. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

  The prompt looks acceptably neutral to me. It even uses the wording "continue to describe", which implies that it is the status quo/stable version. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• If the consensus version is "Sati or suttee[a] is a practice, a chiefly historical one," and the heading of this RfC references it, then why does the RfC statement focuses on "largely historical"? Zalaraz (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Vanamonde93 You should modify your RfC statement, "largely historical" is not the consensus version. That confusion has caused alot of contention in this RfC and will mislead uninvolved editors. @Fowler&fowler The version you edited said "Sati or suttee[a] is a practice, a chiefly historical one". Do you support restoring this stable wording? Zalaraz (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  I worded the RfC very carefully: it does not say that "largely historical" is the consensus version, nor does it compel the use of "largely" over "chiefly" or equivalent. It is also patently not the source of trouble here: the edit-war was over including any mention of frequency in the lead sentence. I see no need to modify the RfC statement, and doing so after this many editors have opined would be inappropriate in any case. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  It implies that, “continue to describe the” and “through a descriptor such as ‘a largely historical practice’” directly lends belief to the “largely historical” version as the consensus version. You should acknowledge that the version with "chiefly historical" descriptor is the consensus version, atleast. Zalaraz (talk) 05:46, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you Zalaraz for pinging me. Thanks for your support for the use of "chiefly" in the lead sentence. Although I do think "chiefly" is a more apt adverb, which lays the predominant burden of the onset of the practice at the doorstep of early medieval and even ancient Hindu India, I don't think "largely" is a deal breaker. So, I'd say I agree with Vanamonde's recent edits. They make the lead more readable and less ambiguous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)