Talk:Infanticide

Relevance of mentioning the legend of Romulus and Remus

I don't see the point of mentioning this ancient Roman legend in this article. According to legend, the twins who went on to found Rome had survived an attempt on their lives by their great uncle, who saw them as potential rivals to his claim to the throne of Alba Longa. Since it is a legend or myth, it sheds no light on what the actual cultural practises or views on infanticide were in ancient Latium. And even if it were true, it was a simple attempted murder based on power and greed, and not related to the fact that the intended victims were infants.Cooker (talk) 05:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooker (talk • contribs) 05:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Connection between Unintended/Unwanted pregnancy and Infanticide

The link to unintended pregnancy certainly belongs in this article. Note that unintended pregnancies include those that are unwanted as well as those that are mistimed. The article is about all of those topics. The connection of the topics seems pretty straight-forward, and is supported by the reference provided.

Unwanted pregnancy is a major cause of unwanted birth, which is a major cause of unwanted children, which are at greater risk of infanticide. In the history section this article lists many instances where infanticide was practiced on unwanted children. The cause of the unwantedness may be economic, social, personal, whatever, but they are still unwanted. Recent advances in contraception have provided more alternatives in chosing whether to have a pregnancy, providing more options to pregnancy and making intention more important. This change is also reflected in the patterns of and attitudes to infanticide.

The see also link to unintended pregnancy was deleted once with no explanation, and then with one that had no clear connection to the link introduced. I have no interest in the "interminable abortion wars," and have no interest in introducing them anyplace or warring about them. The article in question is about a condition that is sometimes a precursor to abortion, sometimes a precursor to infanticide, sometimes a precursor to adoption, sometimes a precursor to maternal or infant mortality, or miscarriage, and relates to various other phenomena.

At the moment I have only added it as a relevant see also, but it should be expanded and incorporated into the article using suitable references. If you think the connection needs further clarification or support, please explain here. Thanks. Zodon (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that source does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, and there's no need to infect this article with the interminable fetus/baby pro-choice/pro-life debates. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Note that for see also to related items it is not customary to require sources for see also items, it is sufficient that the item be related.

Interesting that the source is sufficiently good to be an external link in the article, but not a reliable source. On what specific grounds is it not reliable? However that is a side note, it is easy to come up with higher quality sources - that was merely one that was conveniently to hand (and already used in the article).

The real question is why do you think the topic of unintended pregnancy is not related to infanticide. Much of the content of the article already talks about unwanted children so it makes no sense to try to ignore one of the major underlying causes of infanticide. Whether it has anything to do with pro-choice/pro-life/whatever is irrelevant. It is whether it has to do with infanticide.

To attempt to keep the concept of desiredness of a child out of the article is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. Zodon (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the more obvious economic linkage mentioned above and already covered in the article, note that unintended pregnancy is one of the risk factors for postpartum depression, which is in turn a cause of infanticide. Screening for risk factors and offering appropriate follow-up may help prevent more serious consequences, such as suicide or infanticide. J Fam Pract. 1996 Dec;43(6 Suppl):S17-24. Postpartum depressive disorders. Susman JL. PMID 8969709 Zodon (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as fetus/baby/pro choice/pro life - Jayjg is the one bringing that or abortions into the discussion. Nothing in my addition about any of that. Zodon (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically enough, while looking for higher quality sources on Unintended pregnancy and infanticide, I came across a medical text that suggests a link between the legalization of abortion in the United States and the decline in infanticide. Maureen Paul. Management of unintended and abnormal pregnancy: comprehensive abortion care. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 34. ISBN 978-1405176965. Zodon (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There's no direct link between one and the other; saying A causes B which causes C, and therefore a link to C belongs in article A doesn't count. Also the source you used in the article still isn't reliable. And finally, this is all about the interminable fetus/baby pro-choice/pro-life debates - please don't disingenuously claim otherwise. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Putting in a "See also" link does not mean that there is a "direct link," only that they are related. If there was an article on unwanted birth or unwanted children, then it might suffice to link to such an article. However there is not, so at the moment it makes sense to link to the closest available antecedent/causative condition, i.e. unintended pregnancy - it is reasonable that someone wishing to read about infanticide may also wish to read about a common precursor of infanticide.

As far as that source - why is it unreliable? It is not obvious to me in what way it violates the criteria, so I would appreciate more specific information on what criterion of WP:RS it does not meet?

As far as the debates - why do you think that linking to this article will bring on debate/edit war/etc? What does the article on unintended pregnancy have to do with those debates? Why should linking to it cause problems?

Plainly abortion is related to infanticide (in the sense that they are both ways of dealing with unwanted pregnancies), and making abortions more available is one of the factors that has lead to a decrease in infanticide in at least one country. So trying to avoid covering the topic for whatever reason will lead to violation of NPOV.

If you think that the way the link to unintended pregnancy has been introduced will cause endless debate, please suggest a way of covering the connection that you think will work better. Zodon (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any direct link between the two topics, and I don't see any reliable sources that do. The source you used, http://infanticide.org/history.htm , is a webpage by Larry S. Milner, on his website. I can't understand why you would assert it is a WP:RS, but I'm certainly willing to hear an argument for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The web page in question appears to be an excerpt/summary from Milner, Larry S. (2000). Hardness of Heart / Hardness of Life: The Stain of Human Infanticide. University Press of America. ISBN 0761815783. since it is published by an academic press, it is not obviously self published. The same web page is listed as an external link on this page, the book is used as a citation in this article and another wikipedia article about infanticide, and the contents of the site is unsurprising - paralleling the content on this wikipedia article fairly closely. If this author's work is not a reliable source, why is it cited 8 times in this article?

There is no requirement for "see also" items that there be a direct link, only that they be related. (i.e., readers interested in this are likely to be interested in that). Zodon (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear that that's an excerpt from the book; on what page is it found? WP:SEEALSO is quite clear that the See also section should contain "A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles". This doesn't seem related. Also, please review WP:BRD - you Boldly inserted it, it was Reverted, now we Discuss it. Stop trying to edit-war it in. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the author of the article in question is the author of a book published by an academic press suggests that they are a reliable source on this topic.

There is no attempt to "edit war" anything. Since the objection was raised here that the relation was not clear, and there was question about the source. I proposed a version that made it clearer. Unintended pregnancy - with explanation of connection to infanticide and reference to source already used in the article and published by an academic press

A further refinement would be to cite the web site (since it is more easily verifiable), with note indicating that the author is the author of Hardness of Heart

• Unintended pregnancy - unwanted pregnancies are more likely than wanted ones to result in infanticide

with the reference being Larry S. Milner. "A Brief History of Infanticide". Retrieved 2011-08-24. By the author of {{cite web}}: ref stripmarker in |quote= at position 18 (help)

Since you evidently feel that the relation is not clear enough, please suggest how to clarify it further. Zodon (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Another reference

Maureen Marks. "Infanticide". Psychiatry. 8 (1): 10-12. doi:10.1016/j.mppsy.2008.10.017.

Of mothers who commit Neonaticide: "The pregnancies are often their first, unintentional, and concealed. The motivation to kill is usually because the child was unwanted;"

Further on it says in, relation to why it is predominantly young inexperienced women whose neonaticides are detected, "It is likely that more mature, worldly women are better able successfully to conceal an unwanted pregnancy and dispose of the newly delivered infant in such a way that it remains undiscovered."

Is that more acceptable as a reliable source? Zodon (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If you have relevant material from a reliable source, then include it in the article itself, with a link to the article in question. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Zodon (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks good; adding material that way is much more useful for the reader. A properly-written article will have a brief See also section, or (ideally) none at all, as all relevant information will be incorporated into the article in a contextually meaningful way. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No mention of Isaac

Guys, there is some serious bias in the editing of this article if there is a section on infanticide in Judaism is arguing that Judaism only ever banned infanticide with no mention of Yahweh's command for Abraham to kill Isaac or other instances of infanticide / killing of children in the Torah!

1. "Although there are several instances in the Bible of ancient Hebrews sacrificing their children to heathen gods" -- Oh, right, so only the non-Jews did this. Wrong. Also, unsourced!
2. "Judaism prohibits infanticide." -- Why the present tense if this is in the "In ancient history" section? Religion changes. Heck, the first Jews believed that other gods existed!
3. The only actual sources (besides verse citations) in this article are from the Common Era… how does this make sense in the "ancient history" section again?
4. References to infanticide and killing of children by Yahweh are consistently removed from this section despite having verse citations. This is a double standard, as no references are used to assert that the ancient Jews prohibited infanticide except verse references.

Shameful, biased behavior.

I am adding back some verse references of Yahweh being A-OK with infanticide. If you disagree, the anti-infanticide references must also be removed. --X883 (talk) 00:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Torah narrative has God restraining Abraham from killing Isaac, so you seem to be proving the opposite of the point you intend. Also, there's no indication that Isaac was an "infant" at the time - Jewish tradition gives Isaac's age at the time of the binding as 37. Anyway, I've removed the entire paragraph as original research based on primary sources. If any material is to be added, it should come from modern reliable secondary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg, I gather from your user page that you are yourself a Jew. While I respect you as a Wikipedian, may I suggest that you are not being entirely fair in this aspect, and you ought to recuse yourself from moderating this particular section, as your biases are apparently influencing your editorial approach here.

With regards to Isaac, while it is true the story does end with an angel stopping Abraham, note the only reason he needed stopping was because Yahweh had asked him to make the sacrifice in the first place. The article defines infant as baby but note that infant does also often refer to children as well.

Lastly, since no one has provided no justification for retaining the anti-infanticide instances of what you call "original research" based on "ancient primary sources", but see fit to remove the pro-infanticide occurrences of the same, I have no choice but to remove the entire section until someone can contribute a properly sourced, encyclopedic section with a neutral point of view. --X883 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do not make any further speculations, assertions or comments about me, or my alleged ethnicity or religion; I never comment about these matters, as they are irrelevant, and neither should you. Instead focus solely on article content, per WP:NPA and WP:TALK. Regarding the rest of your comments, 37 is not an "infant", and the Hebrew Bible is a primary source. Please review WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

You are acting irresponsibly and have rolled back my edit without justification. Whether or not my speculation is unwarranted is irrelevant to the objectivity of the article in question, and you have not responded to my claims in this area. (Are you asserting Isaac was 37 years old? What!?) My edit summary contained similar reasoning to that expressed here, and a mention of your obvious bias is but a small part. Not justification for reversions. Do not further edit this section. --X883 (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

An edit made on the basis of a personal attack has no justification, and you certainly have not responded to the issues raised here with your edits. Base any material you add on reliable secondary sources, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Do not refer again to me in any way, per WP:NPA. This will be your last warning. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

If I may observe, this article already cites Plutarch in regards to ancient Greece's views on infanticide, Philo for Roman views, Justin Martyr and the Didache for early Christian views. Citing Josephus would be in line with the rest of the article; if there's any concern about him being a primary source, Jayjg also cited Tacitus, who is more of a secondary source than Plutarch is for the Greeks. Meanwhile, interpreting the Torah, as you were doing with your edits, is original research (comparing two primary sources and reaching a conclusion about them is practically the definition of OR). I disagree with Jayjg that you would need to find a modern secondary source for your claims, but you would need to find some reliable secondary source that does the interpretation for you, and concludes that ancient Jewish views on infanticide were contradictory. In your edits, you didn't provide that. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not dispute that; not only that in the course of these edits, the only citations are from the first century, C.E. Thus the entire section no longer belongs in the "Ancient" section of the article, if it only discusses more modern Judaism; hence the removal. To keep it in place without good sources regarding Judaism in B.C.E. would be misleading. Would you agree? --X883 (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "modern Judaism"? What do you mean by "good sources regarding Judaism in B.C.E."? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree, actually. The earliest citation for Roman views is from 1 BCE, which is roughly the same time period as the citations from Tacitus and Josephus. You could make an argument that the phrasing should be something along the lines of "Since at least the first century, Judaism held that infanticide..." but I don't think it's valid to say the section should be removed solely because there are no citations for more ancient Jewish views on infanticide. It's sourced and it discusses first century Judaism, which is a consistent time period with other cultures discussed in the "Ancient History" section. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I just re-read the section; it already says "...dating back to at least early Common Era." That's entirely consistent with the sources, and it doesn't preclude a different earlier in Judaism. I just don't see why earlier Jewish views on infanticide would even be an issue, unless and until reliable sources can be found to discuss those views. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Side remark. I have been contacted by X883 to make a comment. I have to say that I am guessing this is because he found that I have been in some debates, or one extended debate, with Jayjg. I am not sure that is a good way to find third parties on WP! Anyway, I looked at this and FWIW I agree with the comments of 107.10.43.91, meaning I basically agree with Jayjg. I think this is not a disagreement that many experienced editors are going to be interested in getting involved in as it stands right now, because X883 is asking to remove sourced material, but is unable to cite any sources to back his position. Generally speaking, in such situations, not only should you go find sources first, but you should not be arguing to remove cited material, but more towards adding whatever other opinions you think can be well sourced. The case of Isaac is not enough, because interpreting that as an example of an infanticide is obviously wrong (Isaac was not killed) and also interpreting it as signs of an infanticide tradition is obvious going to be fairly tenuous and controversial (meaning you need good sources) because in the story itself is is presented as a one off test of faith of one man.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Note I was the one who introduced the phrase "...dating back to at least early Common Era". Please note that comparisons with the Romans, as far as time of primary sources is concerned, is not entirely valid; the Roman empire began in 27 BCE and Judaism itself is a whole millennium older than that. My concern that the section omits early Hebrew attitudes toward infanticide remains.

Furthermore, I did not find Andrew Lancaster because he had disputes with Jayjg in the past, and remain unaware of any such disputes except as alluded to above. I found a random article and then viewed its history, selecting the first admin-type user therein.

Lastly, I do wish Jayjg would cease claiming persecution from me. My only concern is the objectivity of this section, and my only observation is that I believe it to be a biased section, maintained as such primarily by Jayjg’s edits. Any implications that this reflects on Jayjg’s character are both unintentional and likely unavoidable. I have no doubt he/she is a good editor, but disagree with his/her edits to some degree, here. --X883 (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then, what sources can you bring to the article concerning those earlier Hebrew attitudes?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree about the Roman example being invalid. The empire may have begun in 27 BCE, but the republic was well-established for centuries before that. But that's tangential to the discussion, so I won't push it.

You seem to be saying that the current section on Judaism is NPOV, at least for the limited scope of just the past 2,000 years. If that's the case, then I think we can agree that what's written right now should stay. This doesn't preclude expanding the section to discuss earlier Jewish views on infanticide if and only if reliable sources can be found.

If this isn't what you're saying (and some of your edit summaries like [1] said the section is NNPOV and poorly sourced), then what specifically do you see as POV or why would you reject Tacitus and Josephus as reliable sources?

Like Andrew Lancaster says, without reliable sources, there's no point in discussing earlier Jewish views. If you do have reliable sources, that's an entirely different matter. 107.10.43.91 (talk) 21:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What is it about "Do not refer again to me in any way, per WP:NPA" that you don't understand? The article's talk page is for discussing article content. Do not refer again to me in any way, per WP:NPA. Discuss article content only. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggest split history

The history section of the article large enough that is should probably be split into a separate article on History of infanticide. Comments? Zodon (talk) 06:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Zodon is placing advertisements for legalized abortion in article

Editor Zodon had been assiduously but gratuitously placing advertisements for legalized abortion in this article. Speculation by advocates of legal abortion that it either has reduced, or will reduce, rates of infanticide don't belong in the article. In POV warrior mode, Zodon has taken every opportunity to do just that. Badmintonhist (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)