Talk:Ritualized child abuse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Contents

[edit] Validation of this article

The rationale of why a distinct article like this one should exist in Wikipedia is explained in the header:

This article is about ritualistic child abuse in real life. For the conspiracy theory involving vast networks of paedophiles abusing children, see Satanic ritual abuse

This section —:

Ritualized child abuse is also related to infanticide. Before colonization, in the Hawaiian islands all children, after the third or fourth, were strangled or buried alive. At Tahiti fathers had the right (and used it) of killing their newborn children by suffocation. The chiefs were obliged by custom to kill all their daughters. The Rajput killed a proportion of his daughters, sometimes in a very singular way. A pill of tobacco and bhang might be given to the new-born child; or it was drowned in milk; or the mother's breast was smeared with opium or the juice of the poisonous datura. A common method was to cover the child's mouth with a plaster of cow-dung, before it drew breath. In India children were thrown into the sacred river Ganges, and adoration paid to the alligators who fed on them. Where this custom prevailed in the beginning of the twentieth century as a sacrifice the male child was usually the victim.

—was taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

The article is a stub. I have informed other editors that have been interested in starting this article to expand it & correct it.

Cesar Tort 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Within the Columbian culture that killed children, I doubt this was considered child abuse. I am concerned that this page runs afoul of WP:V, specifically that it attempts to portray this as true - that all child killing is automatically child abuse. By our modern conception it is - killing children in Incan sacrifices was wrong and child abuse. By the Incan culture, it was right. A modern pedophile has sex with a child because they are selfishly gratifying urges that are forbidden by our culture. In ancient Mesoamerica, it was considered culturally appropriate. There's a massive difference and I'm concerned about lumping them together. WLU (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This has already been discussed at length here. —Cesar Tort 19:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Meh, I still say child sacrifice and child abuse are two different subjects. Lacking expertise and interest, I'm probably not going to comment or edit much. The discussion you linked to didn't address my concern that this is the projection of a modern idea (child abuse) on a completely different culture and historical period. Yes it's horrific, yes it's painful, yes if someone were to do so today we would say child abuse, but was it then? But you know all this and there's not much point in repeating : ) WLU (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, WLU, that your personal stance would be that we should not classify, say, pre-Columbian child sacrifice as homicide because within the mores of that cultures, it was not considered murder. But let's not forget the pov of the sacrificed children. According to Bernardino de Sahagún, the Aztec children cried when they were about to be sacrificed. They obviously experienced the ritual as abusive. Anyway, I've removed the category "homicide" from this page. Hope that's fair enough :) Cesar Tort 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm...my first thoughts are about WP:5P and WP:NOT#Memorial - we're an encyclopedia, not a memorial, unfortunately information trumps the terror they may have felt. And were they tears of joy for having such an integral part in the renewal of life and importance with the supernatural cause they were helping with? I'm playing Devil's advocate, obviously I think sacrificing children to make it rain is stupid and horrible, but child abuse is a thoroughly modern idea, just like the idea of the rights of animals and the lack of value in the elderly. I'm not going to AFD the page or bold-merge it back to SRA. I'm just suggesting things to think about and giving you my gut reaction. The horror of events should not influence the dispassionate recording and discussion of them in an encylcopedic manner. Get the feeling we're talking in circles? I still also feel that the split between SRA and ritualized child abuse is not a good one, but I'm not the community and obviously there was some support for it on talk:SRA so for now at least they stay separate. How about we agree that we're disagreeing, and see where the following weeks take us? I don't think either one of us will come around to the other's point of view no matter the arguments raised. WLU (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "And were they tears of joy for having such an integral part in the renewal of life and importance with the supernatural cause they were helping with?"
Nop! In fact, most of the Aztec human sacrifice was involuntary. People in their towns were raided (like in the Apocalypto film) for sacrifice. Forget Mel Gibson. This is demonstrated in the 16 century Sahagún text. Also, you can see in Bernal Díaz's 16 century account that not only the Spaniards, but many Indians also felt that Aztec sacrifice of their own people was horrible and abusive. The feeling of abuse is not only a view of our times.
Yes: we may agree to disagree and we can only wait for other editors to comment here. I still think that merging this page with SRA is akin to merge sexual abuse to an article on claims of sexual experiments during UFO abduction.
I apologize for my bold preempt and for not waiting for a broader consensus in talk:SRA anyway. But isn't Wikipedia calling for our boldness sometimes? :)
—Cesar Tort 01:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I wouldn't have cited WP:BOLD if I didn't think it was OK! Boldness isn't a permission thing, it's codified. On gristle-chewing the idea for a bit, I think my objection comes down to one of motivation - the motivation of the ancient Incas was totally different from the motivation of a modern child abuser - sexual gratification, power trip, frustration, definitely not following the cultural mores to (the believed) good of society. Anyway, just because I disagree doesn't make me right, there's millions of other editors on wiki and a half-dozen on the SRA alone who may have a different opinion. You were bold, let's see how it unfolds. WLU (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. But some scholars do not think that the motivation of the ancient Incas was totally different from the motivation of a modern child abuser. Since this topic is related to the legitimacy of this article, what I am about to quote is not soapboaxing.

See how psychologist Robert W. Godwin mocks the anthropologists who idealize the Capacocha child sacrifice:

“ I will cite just one out of thousands of examples, the recent discovery in the mountains of Chile of three children who had been ritually sacrificed 500 years ago [National Geographic, November 1999]. Lest you think there was anything horrifying and barbaric about this practice, these children were actually the benefactors of "the highest honor the Inca civilization could bestow: becoming a human gift to the mountain gods." In fact, one of them had even her head placed in a vice from birth, so that she would have the distinction of her skull growing "into the shape of a mountain peak," thus resembling the god to whom she would be sacrificed. Although they were buried alive, we are assured that the children "exude an air of tranquility," and that "this was not a time of terror and horror but of peace and worship." And with this fortuitous archeological find, researchers are hoping the little ones "prove as valuable to science as they were precious to their people." Here we see a fine example of complete moral inversion, in what amounts to the glorification of collective intimidation, humiliation, and thought control, with all its potential for unhinged sadism. ”

—Cesar Tort 03:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

None of that to me says anything about the motivation of the Incans being similar to that of a modern child abuser. The archeologists are projecting a utopian ideal the same way Godwin projects a sadistic torturer. And really, we can never know who is right or of both are 100% wrong, because that was 500 years ago in a culture completely alien to me. Yeah, I think it's horrible, but I'm not an ancient Incan. I don't think you're soapboxing BTW, I just don't find it convincing enough to change my position. Do you think this dead horse has been beaten enough?  : ) Let's leave this discussion and let the page evolve. WLU (talk) 15:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The Incas' motivations have been discussed elsewhere, but yes: let us end this thread and the page evolve. —Cesar Tort 18:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • gasp* <choke> **gurrrrrgllle** REMEMBER ME AS I ONCE WAS!!! (dies) WLU (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem (as I see it) is that you (cesar)seem to be defining what is abuse, and yes by our standards they are, but at the same time I think you're going to have to find references that call these things abuse. Yes, all of these things are ghastly, horrid and <insert adjective here> but without sources that specifically mention them in the context of abuse it seems to me to be WP:OR. Remember, we want verifiability not truth WP:V. --Woland (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh no: it's no OR. Believe me! Have you read the expressions of horror of Bernardino de Sahagún about the sacrifice of Indian children almost 500 years ago? Sahagún (1499-1590) has often been called "the father of modern ethnography, because his methods included using native informants to elicit information on Aztec culture from the Aztecs' point of view." I have read part of his monumental Florentine Codex and, if you like, can quote verbatim (in Spanish) those expressions of abuse. (There's an English academic translation but I don't have it.) —Cesar Tort 01:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because it happened does not mean that it isn't OR, again read WP:OR. Placing it in this context could constitute OR if it is not presented that way in reliable sources (i.e. people referring to it as "child abuse" in sources. That is what "verifiability not truth" means.
Again I'm not saying that these sources don't exist, what I'm saying is that they are not represented in the article. Without sources like this you are (and I know you are not doing it intentionally) representing a POV, which to some extent I personally agree with, but the goal of any editor worth his salt is to represent the information in a NPOV way. I think that this will eventually be resolved as this article matures though. --Woland (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that dead horse just twitched! Shame on you Woland! Anyway, funny aside, I'm in agreement with Woland, and I think the best thing might be to just bring this up in a WP:RFCor possibly one of the noticeboards for a more generalized comment. I think it's OR, CT does not, who is right? We need outside input methinks. WLU (talk) 16:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The words that Sahagún used in the XVI century about child sacrifice were not the code word "maltrato de niños": Spanish translation of "child abuse". But he and others did use the equivalent terms to what since the 20th century is called abuse or crime. Nobody can refute that both the Spaniards (and even some Indians) were appalled by child sacrifice and used the terms of their epoch and cultures to reflect their horror. Is this a semantic discussion or a substantial one? I thought the horse was already dead... Cesar Tort 19:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Blame Woland, not me, I put the whip down yesterday. The problem for me is, we (and by that, I mean you, CT) are saying that even though the Spanish didn't call it such, this is the same thing as what we now call child abuse. In some cases, we are allowed to do so, but it must be done carefully. Bringing it up at WP:ORN would probably be the fastest solution to getting an opinion (and handy, I didn't know there was such a thing). WLU (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A comment, if DeMause and Psychohistory are the only sources and references we have to go on for this not being OR, I wonder if the page better belongs in Psychohistory than this one. It's a tough call - Psychohistory is a discipline (if a small, fringe-ish one) and publishes an academic journal (to a limited audience I assume), but if their work and conclusions are not accepted in the mainstream, that's probably WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE territory. Given that JPH is a single-editor oversight journal, I'm even more nervous. WLU (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not only deMause. I have also added sources to Godwin and Alice Miller. Miller is probably the foremost expert on child abuse today. —Cesar Tort 20:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so that addresses that concern. Thanks Cesar. WLU (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Miller is not the "foremost expert on child abuse today". I happen to like her, but she's a populist author who writes for a general audience. Her historical work on child abuse was groundbreaking in the 1980s but things have moved on.
This article appears to reflect Cesar's narrow theoretical base and little else. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quote at the top of this talk page

CT deleted this from the talk page, due to its being a "rv long & irrelevant soapboax." It is relevant, it replies to his definition:

Not all agree with the definition of Satanic Ritual Abuse at the top of the talk page: " For the conspiracy theory involving vast networks of paedophiles abusing children, see Satanic ritual abuse" It may be long, but necessary to clarify the data. Abuse truth (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are some different definitions of SRA.

two peer-reviewed sources

"Deviant Scripturalism and Ritual Satanic Abuse" Part One: "Possible Judeo-Christian Influences." S. Kent - Religion 23 no.3 (July, 1993): 229-241.

"A plausible explanation for satanic abuse accounts that is not explored by critics is that deviant: either develop satanic rituals from material that exists in easily accesible mainstream religious texts, or sanctify their violence by framing it within passages in otherwise normative scriptures." p. 231

"Multiple Personality Disorder and :Satanic Ritual Abuse: the Issue Of Credibility" Dissociation, Vol. III, No. 1 March 1990 S. VanBenschoten

Ritual abuse may or may not have satanic overtones. However, many of the allegations of ritual abuse which have surfaced over the present decade specifically implicate allegiance to or worship of Satan as the basis for accomplishing or justifying the ceremonial activities performed. Although the prevalence of satanic ritual abuse is not known, its involvement in a variety of social contexts and diverse belief systems has been reported. Highly secretive and rigidly structured cults have been implicated, as well as groups exploiting day care centers, groups disguised as traditional religious structures, families (including rnultigenerational involvement), small self-styled adolescent groups, child pornography and drug rings, and individuals acting either independently or within loosely knit groups (Brown, 1986: Gallant, 1986, 1988; Gould, 1986, 1987; Kahaner, 1988; Young, 1989).

two skeptical sources

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sra.htm

Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) can be defined as the psychological, sexual, and/or physical assault forced on an unwilling human victim, and committed by one or more Satanists according to a prescribed ritual, the primary aim of which is to fulfill the need to worship the Christian devil, Satan.

by Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent

Behavioral Science Unit

National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime

1992 FBI Report --Satanic Ritual Abuse By Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent Behavioral Science Unit National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime

What is "Ritual" Child Abuse?

I cannot define "ritual child abuse" precisely and prefer not to use the term. I am frequently forced to use it (as throughout this discussion) so that people will have some idea what I am discussing. Use of the term, however, is confusing, misleading, and counterproductive. The newer term "satanic ritual abuse" (abbreviated "SRA") is even worse. Certain observations, however, are important for investigative understanding. Most people today use the term to refer to abuse of children that is part of some evil spiritual belief system, which almost by definition must be satanic.

Satanic Ritual Abuse: The Evidence Surfaces

By Daniel Ryder, CCDC, LSW

http://home.mchsi.com/~ftio/ra-evidence-surfaces.htm

The report was written by supervisory special agent Kenneth Lanning. It has gone out to law enforcement agencies around the country; and has been cited consistently throughout the media the last several years. The report states, in regards to "organized" Satanic ritual abuse homicide (that is, two or more Satanic cult members conspiring to commit murder Abuse truth (talk) 04:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote looks fine now. WLU (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV fork

This page is Cesar's vanity piece and it needs to be integrated with psychohistory, or deleted.

It's been created by Cesar as a POV fork from SRA, in order to shift content from that article into this one, thus stripping the SRA article of substantiated cases of ritualistic abuse, and enabling Cesar to entrench his own POV in the SRA article. See [here]:

Once Ritualized child abuse is created as a legitimate WP article, there would be no reason to impede us the moving of the legitimate cases of child ritual abuse to the moved article. We can even do it before the SRA page is unlocked. This strategy would comply with WP’s due weight policy by vindicating the majority view in history and sociology that the subjects are distinct (RCA is about actual forensic evidence, while SRA is about a 1980s and 90’s moral panic more analogous with witch-hunts than with ritual crime). —Cesar Tort 20:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On the same page, he accuses me of meatpuppetry and so on. His creation of this article is just another example of his refusal to AGF in relation to editors who disagree with him. It wouldn't be such a problem if this article actually had any merit, but he's just taken material from the article on psychohistory, and, in his own words, added "some content totally unrelated to deMause’s theories to justify the moving".

The result is a vanity piece that rests on a few theorists (deMause and Miller) whose theoretical influence is limited to the 1980s. The content is bizarre and I've never come across anything like it before - it is a clear example of synthesis, original research and undue weight, and his conduct fails to AGF. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

  • "The content is bizarre and I've never come across anything like it before."
This means that you haven't read Lloyd deMause or the psycho-historians. Have you?
As to the POV issue, the real POV article today is Satanic ritual abuse (SRA), about which you say in your basically single account userpage:
“ At the moment, I'm advocating for the reform of the Satanic Ritual Abuse article on Wikipedia. Whilst the role of ritualistic activity in organised child sexual abuse is not clear, we know that it does occur, and that it is related to the most severe forms of child maltreatment and sexual exploitation. For years, the SRA article has instead suggested that most people with a history of SRA are fantasists, and the professionals who support them are malicious and corrupt. In my experience as a researcher, nothing could be further from the truth. ”
If the SRA article is locked right now it's precisely because credulous editors have tried to push nonsense like Michelle Remembers in an encyclopedic article.
On the other hand, this article merely recounts well-known historical, ethnological and anthropological facts that nobody disputes —hardly POV.
We will see in the forthcoming months how these two articles evolve, especially the SRA article, about which I doubt it will be unlocked for too much time if the credulous pov-pushers persist with their unreliable sources.
And please, don't bring in the discussion from that hotly controversial talk page into this one. Even without User:Eleland's idea to split the SRA article, an article on ritualistic child abuse was needed. Another editor totally unrelated with the SRA controversy could very well have started it.
—Cesar Tort 00:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I quite like Lloyd deMause and Alice Miller, but that's beside the point. Psychohistory isn't exactly the canonical approach to the history of child abuse. This page is just a collection of your particular historical interests and pet theories. As such, it constitutes original research by synthesis. If you want to write your own psychohistorical account of ritualistic child abuse, then you have your own website.
The people who keep re-posting Michelle Remembers are the "sceptical" editors. I've actually deleted reference to it a few times because I think it's an example of undue weight, but it's been reposted time and again by "sceptics". It's a bad source and they use it to poison the well.
I agree that an article on ritualistic child abuse was needed, but you are posting bad content, and the term "ritualized" is a strange one. Do a google/scholar search and you'll find it's used very rarely in comparison to "ritual abuse" or "ritualistic abuse". --Biaothanatoi (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • "...and the term "ritualized" is a strange one."
My native language is not English. I just picked up the title I saw in red somewhere in talk SRA. —Cesar Tort 06:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopædia Britannica

  • "no, it's not reliable for events in 1911 either" —User:P4k in edit summary

User:P4k has removed a section that is mostly taken from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. I wonder what does he mean? Isn't the Encyclopædia Britannica a convenient source?

—Cesar Tort 05:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's definitely convenient. If you think that something written a fucking century ago can be reliable then I don't really know what to say to you. Have you read the excerpt from their entry on "negros" that's quoted here? What makes you think the passage you like is any more likely to be accurate? Britain was a colonial power in India in 1911, ffs.P4k (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
No need for quite such a hostile attitude to it. Yes, many of the entries are now outdated, particually sections on race etc. However, that is not a reason to dismiss the entire encyclopaedia. I would, however, agree that much of the antropological research done for the encyclopaedia can be at worst extremely biased, and will show 'natives' as savages. However, the encyclopedia can also be surprisingly accurate in some areas. It is also an extremely interesting source, particually about what may now be defunct rituals, since they are unlikely to be reported now. It should, of course, be noted that there was always a certain bias that would show the colonisers as a civilising force, who removed the barbarism from societies, so do be careful to mention the age and possible bias of the 1911 edition when quoting.
I should also point out that age is not a reason to dismiss a source. On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, ie 149 years ago. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 15:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with J.StuartClarke. For example, I have seen one of the sentences that P4k removed, "In India children were thrown into the sacred river Ganges, and adoration paid to the alligators who fed on them" in other sources. And the other practices could be found in other sources as well. (Unfortunately, I am moving now and all my books are kept in boxes.) If the rephrased paragraph that P4k removed doesn't use outdated words like "negroes", etc., I don't see any objection why not including it. Many early 20th century rituals are gone by now. A 1911 source is important because it mentions anthropological facts of a century ago. —Cesar Tort 15:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
If no substantial reason is given as to why should the entire sourced section be removed, re-adding it is inevitable. —Cesar Tort 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1911 is a long time ago, and if the information is actually true, then there should be more updated sources - that is a reason to if not reject, then at least seek out better sources. Incidentally, though Origins of Species is indeed accurate to a point, the modern synthesis has largely supplanted it, and no-one cites Darwin except as a historical source. Darwin's original observations have been largely verified and augmented, in more recent sources. As should the 1911 text. Also, Darwin was writing of common biological themes, objectively verifiable, uniting all life. Big difference between that and the historical observation and interpretation of cultural practices by a society that saw an entire country as little more than a giant cow to be milked.
One further thing I will venture - a good faith attempt to add information is not a bad thing, even if it not done to the highest of standards. I don't know a) how much Cesar will learn from the initial reply and b) how inclined he will be to listen. Cesar, if your books are in boxes, you may have to wait until you are unpacked, but fortunately wikipedia isn't going away. If you're really attached to your previous addition, pull up the old version out of the history and put it on a sub page pending better sources (or, pull it out of the history when you've got better ones). WLU (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I do know that Origin of Species is now combined with modern genetic research. I was simply pointing out that age alone is not a reason to dismiss a source. Perhaps Newton's theory of gravity would be a better one...? Anyway, either way I do feel that we must try and keep this converstaion rather more civil than telling people that their sources are fucking anything... --J.StuartClarke (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Einstein's theory of general and special relativity? :P It's not that age automatically disqualifies sources, but there must be more updated sources than EB circa 1911. I do agree 100% that the way this was conveyed could have been better, and would probably have had more of an impact on disqualifying the source. Most times when you see a source that is over (picking a random-esque number) 50 years old, it's to say when something was introduced or first described, it's not to add information because often it has been surpassed. I think this is what P4K was getting at (that and racism was kinda omnipresent back then, so sources about cultural practices are more suspect). There's better sources, I'm comfortable moving on from there. WLU (talk) 02:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree that much more up to date sources are needed, although it might well be that some of the alledged practices have stopped since 1911. However, I would side with you in saying that we can't use the 1911 edition in isolation, particually given the anthropological nature of the article. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
ok: I added different sources. I also re-added the EB reference but along with a 1999 reference on the same subject. Hope this looks better... Cesar Tort 05:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This all seems rather overly civilised. Shouldn't someone be shouted at by now...? Thanks for that anyway. --J.StuartClarke (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>We prefer icy politeness and keep our gratuitous bashing to e-mail. I've tripped off several work-based filters now. Note that Hrafn is going at the page now, which should be interesting. WLU (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro WLU. ;) I think this quote from Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition is informative:

Contemporaneous beliefs about race and ethnicity often prevailed in the Encyclopedia's articles, to the detriment of their factual accuracy.

Is it really a WP:RS on such issues? HrafnTalkStalk 16:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am terrified and comforted by your presence Hrafn. I think I just wet myself, but oddly I'm OK with it.
EB has been excised completely, hasn't it? Isn't this thread academic as the EB 1911 has been replaced by more recent sources for the same point? I think CT was the only one interested in using EB, and I think he's been shouted down shown the light. WLU (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the "more recent source" is any better. Discovering Archeology appears to be a defunct "vividly illustrated bimonthly magazine". It seems to be quite frequently cited by fringe sources, so I would be more happy if we got a quote (here on talk) of the original paragraph that makes the point in question, to ensure that it hasn't been misrepresented, particularly as the article itself is about Incas not India. HrafnTalkStalk 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...a news report might also be an adequate source for something like this depending on the paper. Here is a non-shark related article that fits the bill of RCA, but really that's the same territory as the list of allegations from SRA. Another point to consider is that the raw statement is that kids were thrown to sharks. Was it for ritual reasons? Was it for population control? Random psychopathy? There needs to be more context that justifies it being a ritual action. Is it an aspect of puja? Is it Hindu, Muslim, Dravidian, Zoroastrian or Sikh rituals? CT just removed the section - I think this is a good call until a more fleshed out version can be put on the page. Perhaps add it back when you're unpacked CT. WLU (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] restoring link

I have restored the SRA link to the see also section as per policy, "see also section provides a bulleted list of blue internal links to related Wikipedia articles." ResearchEditor (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)