Talk:Cattle theft in India/Archive 1

Allegations without reading the sources
F&f: Spare the wikipedia community of unhelpful OR allegations, when you admit that you haven't access to Gilmartin source, have read only the abstract of the paper! I have embedded a quote from the paper, in the cite in the article's history section. Here is the entire relevant para:


 * "Cattle were among the most ubiquitous and important forms of moveable property in India, and cattle stealing was among the most prevalent crimes in northern India during the colonial period. Cattle and buffaloes (which were often lumped together in official discussions of this crime) were critical to the practice of agriculture in much of north India, particularly in those areas where animal power was needed to operate wells for irrigation. British officials thus recognized early on the importance of cattle ownership as a critical adjunct of the establishment of a productive agricultural economy, and of clear, revenue-paying rights to land." – David Gilmartin (2003), Cattle, crime and colonialism: Property as negotiation in north India, The Indian Economic & Social History Review, page 35

OR in wikipedia does not mean something is not resonating with "the POV/script in someone's head". To quote from the WP:OR page, the phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I will embed a few more quotes to be constructive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am holding off adding "illegal slaughter" content, given the re-title proposal above. Vanamonde is right: we should not imply theft -> illegal slaughter connection, since theft -> legal slaughterhouse and legal sale -> illegal slaughterhouse are all possible; more importantly, it is the source that must discuss this and other aspects of illegal slaughterhouses. There is WP:RS. I need to reflect on where and how to summarize the various RS on illegal slaughterhouses in India. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Move to Cattle raiding in India
One solution to the above is that we move this article to Cattle raiding in India and limit its scope accordingly. We already have articles on Cattle raiding and Cattle raiding in Kenya. The "illegal slaughterhouses" part should just be moved to Cattle slaughter in India (its already there, actually).VR talk  04:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. We need to use titles that reflect the sources and COMMONNAME terms there. Cattle raiding title doesn't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . See my comment above.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources check of a small paragaph
Let's start with the first paragraph in the History section which at this moment looks like this: "Cattle theft was a common crime in British India, states David Gilmartin. The crime came to be known as 'cattle lifting' (like shop lifting), and it was practiced by thieves, by organized mafia and by armies during conquest. Cattle theft were a source of riots and civil disturbances. Hundreds of riots erupted in colonial India over cow slaughter. The British administrators passed laws aimed at preventing cattle theft and their illegal slaughter." Here are the individual sentences or sentence fragments:
 * 1. "Cattle theft was a common crime in British India, states David Gilmartin."
 * (cited to: David Gilmartin (2003), Cattle, crime and colonialism: Property as negotiation in north India, The Indian Economic & Social History Review, Volume 40, Issue 1, pages 33-56.)
 * I don't have full access to Gilmartin right now, but will note for now that the abstract of the paper reads: "Cattle theft was a common crime in British India, and yet one marked by contradictions. While the protection of property was for many a defining feature of the modern state, colonial administrators were often loath to interfere in the negotiations by which Indians commonly arranged the return of stolen cattle. By examining one important prosecution of cattle theft in Punjab's Karnal district in 1913, this article argues that the state, local communities and individuals negotiated the meaning of property at multiple levels. Property was not a fixed concept, but rather a field of negotiation in which the relationship of state, community and individual were defined." Will come back to this.
 * I now have access to the article. Here is the excerpt for the relevant bit, which as the abstract states, is about the negotiation between two notions of ownership of property, including that of cattle:  "(p 35) Property law thus embodied many of the colonial regime's contradictory purposes. Indeed, its importance to the regime lay precisely in the fact that it provided a common framework within which the languages of legal individualism and of indigenous community were brought into mutual interrogation. Colonial property law is thus best seen not as a fixed set of hegemonic principles defined by the state, but rather as a field of negotiation within which colonial state and society were mutually defined. On one level, of course, property law was critical to the legal structures deployed by the British to tie their regime to an emerging capitalist political economy shaping the British empire. Yet, at the same time, property law defined, for both Indians and the state alike, a critical field for negotiating both individual and collective identities. ... To examine the workings of property as a field of negotiation, this article examines another field of property law and property control—the law relating to cattle theft, particularly as it developed in colonial Punjab. ... Cattle were among the most ubiquitous and important forms of moveable property in India, and cattle stealing was among the most prevalent crimes in northern India during the colonial period. Cattle and buffaloes (which were often lumped together in official discussions of this crime) were critical to the practice of agriculture in much of north India, particularly in those areas where animal power was needed to operate wells for irrigation. British officials thus recognised early on the importance of cattle ownership as a critical adjunct of the establishment of a productive agricultural economy, and of clear, revenue-paying rights to land. Yet cattle ownership also held a strong relationship to community values and identities.  Early Vedic myths, as Bruce Lincolm argues, gave cattle raiding 'nothing less than cosmogonic significance'. Far more important for British officials in  (p 36) the nineteenth century, however, were the connections between cattle raiding and the solidarity of local communities. Particularly among pastoral and semi-pastoral groups in the Punjab on the fringes of agricultural settlement, cattle stealing had long involved the competitive raiding of community grazing grounds, and was, as some British officials suggested, a practice associated with the protection of clan livelihood and the defense of community honour. Physically undertaken largely by young men, 'who show off their prowess by lifting the finest animals they hear of', cattle stealing was viewed by many local leaders as far from criminal. 'The heads of villages and even the chiefs of clans,' the British reported, 'connive at the practice, and participate in the profits'. In the late nineteenth century almost all the leading men of the pastoral bar, the arid interfluvial tracts of the western Punjab, including many of those recognised as key administrative intermediaries by the British, were rassagirs—men who protected networks of cattle theft. 'To be convicted of cattle stealing,' a mid-nineteenth century British administration report in the Punjab thus noted, 'leaves no social stain, apparently, on the character of an individual.' 'Indeed, British reports suggested that cattle lifting was in many areas closely integrated into structures of community organisation and indigenous tribal authority. ... Some British officials professed to be shocked by this situation. Imbued with nineteenth century ideas of political economy, these officials saw high levels of cattle theft as indicative of the generally low moral level of the population, suggesting a lack of understanding and appreciation for the true value of private property. Such an appreciation was vital, in the eyes of many officials, in defining the foundations of colonial political authority. Suppression of cattle theft was thus critical for the transformation of Punjabi society into a land of law-abiding cultivators'." Whatever its connections to community norms, cattle theft was thus, in this view, a crime not only against individual Punjabis and their property, but also against the basic principles that defined the colonial Raj as a modem state." (p37) But if these views were widely held, they also jostled against the political importance attached by the British to maintenence of local, community-based authority in the Punjab&mdash;and against the complexities of cattle stealing itself...."
 * Is it accurate to paraphrase the complex point David Gilmartin is making as, "Cattle theft was a common crime in British India says David Gilmartin?" It does a disservice to Martin's scholarship to cite a statement such as this to a complex, nuanced, point about ownership and theft, which interrogates the very notion of theft.
 * 2. The crime came to be known as "cattle lifting" (like shop lifting).
 * Cited to
 * This source, which is authored by two academics in the Department of English Translation at an Italian University, has a half-page devoted to India, a part of its final section. It states: "The conclusive section of our comparative case study on cattle stealing is emblematic of loss of traditions and identity in a world of rising hunger and crime. Increasing meat consumption has meant that holy cows are a target for unscrupulous thieves. Although these animals are mangy and scrawny, they are left to freely roam the streets, making them easy prey. In India there is another English term, which is informal and denotes shoplifting. There are people who volunteer to shelter these animals at night and receive funds from wealthy Indians for this. There is also a large shelter outside the metropolitan area where thousands of cattle live. This is a recent report from the Delhi Journal in the New York Times: "Cattle rustling, called 'lifting' here, is a growing scourge in New Delhi, as increasingly affluent Indians develop a taste for meat, even the flesh of cows, ..."
 * I frankly don't know what to make of this, although this is not POV. "Lifting" is a old term of British English, and by descent, of Indian English, and of Australian English. Its usage in British English with respect to cattle predates its occurrence in "shoplifting."  Here's OED: "lift v. 8. slang. To take up (a portable object; cf. 1d) or drive away (cattle) with dishonest intentions; in wider sense, to steal; to steal something from (a shop, etc.); to rob. Compare with: shoplifting n. Examples: (First attested use) 1529, ... 1722   A. Ramsay Tale Three Bonnets i. 7   Thieves that came to lift their Cattle. 1814   Scott Waverley I. xviii. 271   Donald Bean Lean never lifted less than a drove in his life."  This article is written in Indian English.  I'm a little mystified why two Italians and an American reporter are being cited for usage that is very old, older than the beginnings of American English, older than the arrival of the British in India.  What then does "The crime came to be known as mean?
 * 3. "and it (i.e. the "crime" of the first part of the sentence) was practiced by thieves, by organized mafia and by armies during conquest."
 * (Cited to )
 * This is distortion of Ranajit Guha's subaltern classic. It was what made me suspect other issues. It is now public domain and you can read the relevant pages 151 to 157 on archiv.org: page 151 of Guha at Archiv org.  But just to guide you, very briefly Guha is describing the Santal Revolt or Santal hool (a tribal language term) of 1855 in British India.  He is making the point that cattle-lifting or confiscation, which was a feature of the actions on both sides (Santal and well as British) was not a crime. Here are some quotes: "(p 153) (an) insurrection, twenty-four years before the hool, had followed the same pattern. It had started off with cattle-lifting, and grain and cattle were the objects pillaged most, as the campaign against the rebels was to demonstrate on that occasion too. Russell, the Jungle Mahal Magistrate, recovered 1,200 heads of cattle and 6,000 maunds of grain in the course of his military operations in one sector alone.'" ... The pattern of plunder thus did not quite correspond to what the men of property had feared it would turn out to be. ... For the peasant, as a rebel, was out not to rob but to destroy the authority of his enemies by expropriating them. ... (p 154) No, 'these peasants did not band together to go stealing', as Lefebvre rightly observes. It was not their purpose to appropriate resources by petty crime. Their 'basic aim' was 'to destroy' their enemy's resources and with these his authority by means of a special form of activity of the masses. They distinguished this activity from other types of violence in name by calling it `ulgulan' in Mundari, 'hool' in Santali, ... (p155) In the perception of the insurgents, plunder was thus identified as spoils rather than as criminal acquisition.  (p156) It is precisely because of this quasi-military, hence political, character of plunder that cash and other objects of conspicuous consumption which fell into the hands of the insurgents tended to be treated not as articles of theft but as booty to be shared out amongst all or centralized for use by the leadership in their work for the uprising. (p157) ...There was nothing in the character, mass or velocity of this violence that did not distinguish it clearly from crime."  How then did this become a part of a page on "Cattle theft" and come to be considered a crime here?
 * 4. "Cattle theft were a source of riots and civil disturbances. Hundreds of riots erupted in colonial India over cow slaughter."
 * (Cited to )
 * Here is the relevant portion from page 22. The section is about "Religious Pluralism in South Asia."  It says: "Religious pluralism is a basic characteristic not only of South Asia as a whole but of each of these three countries. In India the minorities include the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. In Pakistan there are sizable numbers of Hindus, Christians and Buddhists. In Ceylon the largest minorities are the Hindus, Christians and Muslims. What is the nature of these communities and how are they related to religion? First, religion provides each group with a focal point of identity and social solidarity, and large areas of its culture are intimately associated with religion. A member of the Muslim community may be an atheist, but the social institutions, personal laws, customs, traditions, history, art and literature which have helped to mold his individual and social existence have been closely related to Islam. Secondly, religious symbols represent group interests and group self-esteem. In undivided India hundreds of communal riots erupted over the killing of a cow by a Muslim or the passing of a noisy Hindu procession in front of a mosque. In 1963-1964 a chain reaction of very serious Hindu-Muslim riots in India and Pakistan followed the theft from a Muslim shrine in Kashmir of a hair revered as a relic of the Prophet Muhammad. Religious symbols continue to be emotionally powerful in unifying the group in the face of real or imagined threats from other groups, and are frequently used to disguise conflicts based on economic interests. The Sinhalese Buddhist who declares that Buddhism must be restored to its rightful place in Ceylon is saying, in part, that his community must enjoy unrivaled dominance in the fields of education and government service."
 * Is this really about what it is being used to cite? I don't think so.  Besides in this case, Smith is careful to include "the passing of a noisy Hindu procession in front of a mosque," and, in general, make the point that the religious symbols are used to disguise conflicts with nonreligious origins.
 * 5. "The British administrators passed laws aimed at preventing cattle theft and their illegal slaughter."
 * (Cited to )
 * This source has a sensitive account of the characterization of the Kallar caste as criminal in British India. It is talking about something else.  Here are some quotes from pages 107 to 111: "p107 Criminals, like animals, savages, and children, were widely imagined by late nineteenth-century observers as reckless and impulsive creatures largely insensible to moral persuasions.  Both the English Habitual Criminals Act of 1869 and the Indian Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 were conceived in this intellectual milieu. Within urban England, inveterate delinquents were spatially segregated from the putatively honest working class. In India, allegedly criminal castes and tribes were physically segregated from the peasants and landholders of the Indian plains." (p108) ... The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 took habitual crime in India as the immemorial tradition of independent and endogamous groups living in and preying from the margins of rural society. The act singled out a number of groups of itinerant traders, forest dwellers, and putatively professional thieves in north India for special surveillance, spatial constraint, and extraordinarily rigid controls, granting provincial officials the authority to confine entire communities to prescribed places of residence. Individuals who violated these spatial constraints were liable to rigorous terms of imprisonment. Such measures, extended to the Madras Presidency of south India in 1911, arguably worked upon the animal nature or biological being of suspected criminals. ... At the outset of the twentieth century, the Madura District held a reputation "from a police point of view [as] by far the heaviest and most troublesome in the [Madras] presidency." Much of this was due to theft in the region, a crime largely attributed to Kallar men. Repeated efforts to combat cattle rustling proved completely ineffectual, as perpetrators routinely outran the scattered men of the state. (p109)...The number of registered Kallars peaked at 39,056 in 1932, representing well over half of those subject to the Criminal Tribes Act throughout the Madras Presidency." Those registered under section l0(1)(b) of the act could not leave their (p110) villages for any reason between sunrise and sunset without first acquiring a written passport, be it to work, trade, or simply visit relatives. A much smaller number registered in addition under section w(i)(a) were required to report for a roll call every night at the nearest police station at both 11 p.m. and 3 a.m.—most of these men likely spent each night sleeping as best they could in station house doorways rather than trekking several miles twice nightly. ... Punitive jails, compulsory schools, army regiments, rural cooperatives, plantation labor colonies, and Kallar villages themselves formed a "incarceral archipelago" within which each and every Kallar man, woman, and child could be confined if necessary." ... No evidence of guilt justified these extraordinarily invasive measures. The Criminal Tribes Act punished tendencies rather than crimes, submitting the vagaries of unrestrained inclination to the full force of legal violence. (p111) On the eve of Indian independence in 1947, native delegates to the Madras Legislative Assembly repealed the Criminal Tribes Act not for having successfully humanized its targets, but rather for having reduced the state and its own officers to the "monstrous" and "inhuman" cruelty of animals." The moral evolution of an independent nation would need to be fostered by other exercises in restraint."
 * How are these pages, concluded by the author in the last two poignant sentences, being used to cite the sentence fragment, "The British administrators passed laws aimed at preventing cattle theft and their illegal slaughter?"
 * (Also cited to :
 * Here is footnote 31: "**Page 159 footnote 31. We get an idea of the wide-ranging powers and responsibilities of a muqaddam from Spear's description of them on the basis of some early nineteenth century official records, including the well-known report on the 'village republics of north India by Metcalf. Apart from the collection of the state revenue, a muqaddam had to look after maintenance of 'peace' in the village, settlement of assorted disputes, prevention of crimes including cattle-lifting, punishments of the offenders, generally in consultation with the village panels (the assembly of five) and the vital 'corporate village expenses. (Percival Spear. A History of Delhi under the Later Mughals, Delhi: Kanishka Publishing House. 1988, ch.VI.) Habib's study shows how the muqaddam increasingly consolidated his personal interests, at the cost of the cultivators of small resources. It was expectations of purely personal gains that 'tempted' moneyed persons' to buy this office as a good investment for their money'. (Habib, 'the Agrarian System, p. 134). In fact his links with the well being of the village as a whole were becoming increasingly tenuous. ..."
 * This is a footnote. As far as I can tell it is about late Mughal Delhi&mdash;as evidenced by the title of Percival Spear's book&mdash;not British Delhi. The British annexed the territories around Delhi in 1810, and Delhi itself formally in 1858.  The footnote itself occurs on page 116-117 where the author is talking about the Mughal taxation system. Moreover, Wikipedia has a page Muqaddam, which cites the Indian historian Irfan Habib's book:  The Agrarian System of Mughal India, Oxford University Press, 2004, ISBN 0-19-565595-8. It is being used here as a cite for, "The British administrators passed laws aimed at preventing cattle theft and their illegal slaughter."

I have now gone through the entire short paragraph. Is there anything there that can be kept? Frankly, there is precious little, unless one is writing an article about the manifest and latent content of the metaphor "Cattle theft" in British India. I have spent a number of hours going through the sources, and I can say in all honesty that there is nothing salvageable in that paragraph. 3., 4. and 5. are unacceptable. 1 has to be altered so much that it becomes a statement about questioning the notion of "cattle theft." And 2. is inaccurate, and has to go. I am not making any accusations. All I am saying is that the sources have been distorted, without imputing any motives. I can't speak to the rest of the article, but if I had to make a judgment based on this paragraph, it would not be an optimistic one. I am travelling in another part of the world, and am now going to bed. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC) Final update  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC) PS Clarifying: I meant above, "I can't speak to the rest of the article, but if I had to make a judgment about the rest of the history section based on this paragraph, it would not be an optimistic one." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  04:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm rather busier than I thought I would be at the moment, and will have to wait awhile before commenting here. If you folks can reach a consensus here before that, that's fine. Let me point out in passing, though, that while Fowler has uncovered some problems with source interpretation, they are at the level of the description and nature of cattle theft, not it's existence or its notability as a topic. So I'd recommend we focus on improvements within the scope of this particular article. Vanamonde (talk) 07:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You had asked me for evidence of source misrepresentation and that is what I have provided. As for notability, I have already observed above: Wikipedia already has a page Cattle raiding, which clearly states, " Cattle raiding is the act of stealing cattle. " and in which "stealing" is pipe linked to "theft."  Cattle rustling of American English&mdash;which has twice as many book sources as "cattle theft" does in India&mdash;redirects to that page; cattle duffing of Australian English also redirects to that page.  As can be imagined, cattle raiding was common around the world.  A case needs to be made that Cattle theft in India'  is so special a case as to need its own page, which was in fact created quickly last week, without first being a part of Cattle raiding and outgrowing it.  I'm still a little mystified how so soon after your post at 13:37 on 30 June on Talk:Violence related to cow protection in India, which concluded with your talking about an RfC, this article came to be created at 21:30 on 1 July 2017, while you were away, and mostly within 2 hours. It is unfair to people like me who are scrupulous about sourcing and content when an article such as this is allowed to be created, especially in a controversial field involving India and the Cow, with discretionary sanction in place on India, all so quickly.  It takes me, a person who has experience in British Raj history four hours so find the misrepresentation; it takes half that time to create such as article.  You have to understand why I am frustrated.  I'm then left to do the cleaning up.   Best,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Response
Let us recap this a bit. The allegation of "content is not reliably sourced" / source misrepresentation began it seems before the source checks! Then the strange analysis above. The general pattern is to provide cherrypicked clips, ignore where the source states "cattle stealing was among the most prevalent crimes in northern India during the colonial period" or equivalent / relevant. Then the vague statement about "a complex, nuanced point" without evidence that the source actually concludes the alleged "nuanced point"! Consider the Gilmartin source. It discusses the subject of cattle theft and associated issues at length, which is what we should expect. Cattle theft, like all thefts, is to be expected to have a context, lead to certain judicial/extra-judicial repercussions, suspicions, individual / clan / community action / charges / defenses / due process / violence / counter-allegations / counter-violence. Gilmartin concludes the dynamic issues with cattle theft of that era on pages 52-54, in a section he begins with, "The long-term results of these [prosecuted] cases, however, were hardly clear-cut. In the wake of the Karnal cattle theft prosecutions of 1913, local officials noted an immediate drop in reported cattle thefts in the district. But less than a year later some Punjab officials were already criticizing these special prosecutions as unlikely to lead to any long-term diminution in the incidence of the crime." (he goes on to mention the contradictions in govt position in later cattle theft cases, that both the police/state versus local panchayats served as alternate venues for affected cattle owners, etc)". So, all through the paper, Gilmartin repeats and accepts cattle theft was one of the most prevalent and significant crimes. To allege or imply Gilmartin is denying cattle theft, is strange! So here we are with the Gilmartin source: source is RS, no OR, there is no misrepresentation. Please allow me to skip the rest of the WP:TEXTWALL. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read the sources carefully. I stand by what I have stated above.  3., 4. and 5. involve significant distortion, 2 is plain incorrect, and 1., Gilmartin, is making a complex point, that in the Punjab, which the British annexed in 1848 there was a contradiction between imposed colonial law which regarded cattle lifting to be criminal, and a traditional society that did not, which, in particular, in the Doabs of western Punjab, among the large pastoral communities, considered it a sign of honor, even 50 years after annexation by the British.  I am comfortable in my assessment.  I am happy for an independent academic expert to evaluate my assessment.  Indeed I am happy for Wikipedia to contact David Gilmartin himself.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for WP:TEXTWALL, please be aware that you have cited one sentence, sometimes a sentence fragment, to three, four, or even five pages of a source. How else can I show that the source has been misrepresented if I don't examine the cited pages?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Technical note: Lest quotes provided above by F&f leave a misleading impression, please note that F&f has lumped / merged paras / parts / sentences from different sections. Gilmartin source's format, section title from page 35 such as Cattle theft in Northern India, for example, is missing in F&f's attempt above (the "..." probably were intended to hint they are skipping/lumping text). If there is OR and distortion, it seems to be by F&f. None of these sources state or conclude that there was "no cattle theft" in India, or that it was not a notable/significant issue, which seems to be one of the WP:OR of F&f. The sources do state that cattle theft in India was a notable/significant issue. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: I am open to suggestions to expand, better explain and better summarize the sources. I urge we avoid entertaining demands for "keep narrow focus and skip nuances/context in one article" and "avoid narrow focus and explain nuances/context in another article". I welcome collaborative suggestions to improve and expand this article, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not probably, but very definitely the ellipses, ie. the "..." are meant to indicated skipped text, it always has in academics and on Wikipedia. How else would I fit 6 pages of Ranajit Guha in one paragraph?  In each quoted bit, I have indicated page numbers. How and why would the reader get confused? Seriously, is that an objection, especially after you are also complaining about walls of text?  Like I said, I'm happy to take this to whatever levels of content resolution Wikipedia has, including external expert evaluation, so sure I am of the misrepresentation of the texts you have wrought on that page.  I haven't written the 3,000-year history section of the FA India for nothing.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

POV fork
Is this article a POV fork? It seems to have been created following disagreement over Violence related to cow protection in India. Note that even if its a POV fork, doesn't mean it should be deleted, if it covers a valid topic.

Ping, , , , , (sorry if I missed anyone).VR  talk  04:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say, let us resolve the other disagreement, or at least make some progress on it, before we start new discussions. This one is relatively easy to pick apart.  Consider the sentence: "By late 19th-century and through the early part of 20th-century, the British administration routinely accused Chamars (untouchables, Hindus) of large-scale cattle deaths by poisoning and of theft for the purposes of obtaining skins for leather trade. According to William Hoey, this diabolical crime led to infected flesh being carried around and was a source of diseases that plagued British India." It is cited to   Can we spot any hint of irony, or of a sardonic deadpan manner, in the sentence above?  No we can't.  Now look at the source.  What are they talking about?  They are talking about wrongful accusations.  In greater detail, the authors say: "'By the end of the nineteenth century, accusations of cattle poisoning against Chamars had become the standard bureaucratic response to large-scale cattle deaths. William Hoey's 1899 statement regarding the criminality of Chamars was not an isolated accusation. The commissioner of Gorakhpur was simply summing up the official view. He had, however, discovered what he believed to be a new feature of Chamars' criminality. Moreover, the association of Chamars with cattle poisoning did not disap-pear with the end of colonialism. A hundred years later, while conducting fieldwork in Lucknow, I read of the very same suspicions against Chamars in a national daily. The news story was trying to account for recent cattle deaths in Lucknow. The sudden increase in cattle mortality had made one officer, Ranjan Dubey of the Lucknow Municipal Corporation's gaushala (cattle shed), suspicious of the Chamars, leading him to accuse them of poisoning cattle for the sake of their hides. Only upon investigation did he confirm, as the local tanner had already told him, the presence of large numbers of polythene bags in the stomachs of dead cows.' In 1899 a white colonial officer accused Chamars of cattle poisoning, while a century later it was a Brahman Indian officer.'"
 * There you have it: POV pushing by "research" in scholarly sources published by academic presses. Citing academic sources is not enough.  You still have to paraphrase them accurately.  The section title says, "This section needs expansion," at the moment of my writing  (see here).  How can that be expanded?  By adding that this story is really a story about the victimization of untouchables both in British times and later, initially by describing them in the framework of 19th century British ethnography, and later through other official and upper-class and upper-caste biases.  ( has written about 19th century British ethnology (see pages 26, 27, etc of the same source above for description of the ethnography.) Best regards,   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Vice regent: you requested "narrow focus" in Cow protection-related violence in India. Vanamonde93 partially accepted your request, and deleted theft and illegal slaughterhouse section there. This a notable topic, with plenty of reliable sources. If you allege it is POV fork, you need to state of which article and why? Wikipedia articles cover topics at several levels of detail, and per WP:SPLIT it is normal to create new dedicated articles, linking them to other articles with WP:Summary. F&f: that section is incomplete, has a "expand section" tag. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. You and others are welcome to summarize WP:RS to that section and this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rechecked Rawat source. No OR here. I will embed a quote for easier WP:V. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing what you had written is not called, "No OR here. I will embed a quote for easier WP:V." We can all see rewriting in the edits: edit1, edit2.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You see rewriting. I see expansion. Whatever it takes... our goal is to collaboratively improve the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Finally getting around to looking at this. I do not think this is a POV fork in any way. The content is, to a lesser or greater extent, supported by solid sources, and as such is encyclopedic in nature. I'm slightly less comfortable with the title/scope of this article. The title as currently written suggests a link between cattle theft and illegal slaughterhouses, and suggests that the article covers this link. However, the content is not doing this. The content covers cattle theft, with slaughterhouses as a (not always directly related) addendum. I would strongly suggest moving the page to Cattle theft in India, a title with a much clearer scope; and if illegal slaughterhouses have been connected to this topic, then that content can be turned into a section here. Vanamonde (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Cattle theft in India proposal makes more sense. Let us wait for couple more days for any additional comments before moving this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not convinced at all that the content is reliably sourced, even to a lesser extent. Reliable sources have been cited, of course, but only very selectively paraphrased to advance a POV, as I showed in the example above, where it was done quite plainly.  It has then been tagged with "This section needs expansion," as if that somehow offers protection against not making sure that Wikipedia rules have not been broken.  I will give more examples.  I'm not convinced at all that an article created in the heat of other disputes is needed to describe events of a century ago (see history section) that somehow escaped characterizations of notability in Wikipedia for so long.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You didn't show anything above! In Cattle protection-related violence article, people want narrow focus based on New York Times etc, no theft/mafia/etc context even if New York Times etc describe the context. In this article, you appear to asking for the contrary, which delights me! I am all for including the context. Specific suggestions and edits that cite sources are welcome. Wikipedia is a collaborative WP:Volunteer project. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested indeed to see any evidence of source misrepresentation you care to provide; but after having worked on this topic for four years, you will understand that I am slightly wary of that accusation, when it is tossed around by editors to remove content that they do not like (see here for instance). Once again, could you raise specific issues, rather than level accusations of hindu-nationalist POV-pushing at folks who have frequently been the ones holding POV-pushers at bay? Do you really believe, for instance, that "Cattle theft in India" is not a topic which requires an article? Vanamonde (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I do not think that second sentence paraphrasing Hoey is appropriate. It should be fixed, or removed. I simply do not regard it as evidence of systematic POV pushing. Vanamonde (talk) 10:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Give me some time. An hour perhaps and I'll go through the sources.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Take your time, there's no deadline here. The fact that we have separated this from the more current topic, especially, would suggest that we can knock it into shape at our leisure. Vanamonde (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm creating a section below, and will go through a small paragraph from the page systematically. Will add an "in use" sign or "underconstruction" and would request no comments there until I'm done.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , can you please explain how this is not a POV fork? Jionakeli (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What is it a POV fork of? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please check the reason by . I believe it can be merged with Cattle slaughter in India. Jionakeli (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It may be a Fork, but I don't see why it is a POV fork. As it happens, it was forked from Violence related to cow protection in India, where it didn't exactly fit and many of you objected to it being there. Theft is not exactly violence, even though MSW argued that it was "economic violence". So I see no harm in it being in a separate article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am also fine with the title being shortened to Cattle theft in India. Illegal slaughterhouses can still be discussed as the context warrants, because it is fairly clear that the stolen cattle end up in them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia already has a page Cattle raiding, which clearly states, " Cattle raiding is the act of stealing cattle. " and in which "stealing" is pipe linked to "theft." Cattle rustling of American English&mdash;which has twice as many book sources as "cattle theft" does in India&mdash;redirects to that page; cattle duffing of Australian English also redirects to that page.  As can be imagined, cattle raiding was common around the world; it was found even in Indo-European mythology.  A case needs to be made that Cattle theft in India'  is so special a case as to need its own page, which was in fact created quickly last week, without first being a part of Cattle raiding.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we first resolve the disagreements on the other article please? Jionakeli (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is the second time Sarah Welch has unilaterally changed the article name, or created a new article, when discussions were ongoing, and admin Vanamonde was not present. She did it once when she created the earlier version of this page Cattle theft and illegal slaughterhouses in India, when the discussions on Talk:Violence related to cow protection in India were ongoing, and Vanamonde has talked of having an RfC.  She has now changed the name to the article to Cattle theft in India.  I will disregard this for now, but a case still needs to be made that Cattle theft in India is such a special case that it does not need to be redirected to Cattle raiding, such as Cattle rustling is, and to exist as an independent article only when it gains sufficient length there to qualify as a spin off.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

,, , , : The more troubling aspect of this name change is that it is not the COMMON NAME as people have been claiming, it is not the common name in scholarly books, in scholarly articles, and not even in overall Google searches. Thus:
 * The search argument: <"cattle raiding" India> returns 190 scholarly books (books published by (inpublisher:Oxford | inpublisher:Cambridge | inpublisher:Harvard | inpublisher:Columbia | inpublisher:California | inpublisher:Chicago | inpublisher:"university press" | inpublisher:Routledge | inpublisher:Wiley | inpublisher:Palgrave)
 * The search argument <"cattle lifting" India> returns 173 scholarly books
 * The search argument <"cattle theft" India> returns 110 scholarly books
 * In Google Scholar, the search argument <"cattle raiding" India> returns 1,730 scholarly articles.
 * In Google Scholar, the search argument <"cattle lifting" India> returns 740 scholarly articles
 * In Google Scholar, the search argument <"cattle theft" India> returns 802 scholarly sources
 * In a general Google search, the argument <"cattle raiding" India> returns 87,500 links
 * In a general Google search, the argument <"cattle lifting" India> returns 10,100 links
 * In a general Google search, the argument <"cattle theft" India> returns 54,200 links

In other words "Cattle raiding in India" is the common name when applied to India, if such a page were to exist as an independent page. Now lets consider the question of this page's existence. Consider now the expression "Cattle rustling" used in North America.
 * The search argument <"cattle rustling" America> returns 553 scholarly books
 * In Google Scholar, the search argument: <"cattle rustling" America> returns 4,610 scholarly articles
 * In a general Google search the argument <"cattle rustling" America> returns 197,000 links

In other words, Cattle rustling is certainly a more notable topic per its larger literature, both scholarly and non-scholarly. But Cattle rustling redirects to Cattle raiding, which is Wikipedia's flagship page for the stealing of cattle whether it is a tradition, a sport, or a crime. The page says in its lead paragraph: "Cattle raiding is the act of stealing cattle. In Australia, such stealing is often referred to as duffing, and the perpetrator as a duffer. In North America, especially in cowboy culture, cattle theft is dubbed rustling, while an individual who engages in it is a rustler." Moreover the redirect for "Cattle rustling" is 11 years old. In other words, "Cattle rustling," a very much more notable topic than "Cattle raiding/stealing/theft in India," has been a part of the flagship article already mentioned, and, for whatever reasons, has not made the transition to an independent article. What do we have here, on this page, instead? We have an article, which in a classic Keystone Kops routine has changed names from Cow-based lynching to Cattle protection-related violence to Animal protection-related violence to Cow protection-related violence to Violence related to cow protection in India splitting to Cattle theft and illegal slaughterhouses in India and now moved to Cattle theft in India, and what we have is not even the common name. I suggest very humbly, that we stop this nonsense, that like 11-year-old Cattle rustling, we redirect this 11-hour-old page to Cattle raiding, and see how it develops there. It might well be the case, that in the absence of WP:Lead fixation, the article's content might finally find its accurate, DUE, and pithy expression there. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * F&f: Please see WP:OWN! You or I don't own wikipedia, nor anyone else. You probably missed this by admin Vanamonde, the "I would strongly suggest moving the page to Cattle theft in India" part. The article can be summarized in "Cattle raiding" per WP:SummaryStyle, but needs to be a separate article given its size and for the same reasons why "Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014" should not be a redirect to Vigilante article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So? He's not an independent content expert whose suggestion is law; he's an argumentation expert.  He said, as far as I remember, to arrive at a consensus.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And here's what he did say, "If you folks can reach a consensus here before that, that's fine. Let me point out in passing, though, that while Fowler has uncovered some problems with source interpretation, they are at the level of the description and nature of cattle theft, not it's existence or its notability as a topic. So I'd recommend we focus on improvements within the scope of this particular article." That doesn't mean he said, "Change the name to ... pronto."  Good night.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Look at the date of Vanamonde's comment you quote (July 8 2017) and the discussion below (post Vanamonde's comment, July 9 and after). We already went through your wall-of-text attempt below, F&f, and what a disappointing failure and misunderstanding / misrepresentation of the source it has been. Now you don't want to count admin Vanamonde's strong suggestion as a part of consensus building process, you dismiss him as "his suggestion is not law". Neither are your suggestions law!, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah Welch: Again, Vanamonde said, "while Fowler has uncovered some problems with source interpretation, they are at the level of the description and nature of cattle theft, ..." The "has" has his emphasis.  Doesn't sound like disappointing failure.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , "Cattle riding raiding" occurred in Vedic times, and it was considered a heroic act. There are plenty of sources that cover that. "Cattle lifting" is more often carried out by tigers than men. "Cattle theft" is a fairly neutral description of the act. I don't find anything "troubling" about it.
 * I think you have exhausted what you can achieve by posting messages here. If you think this article shouldn't exist, your better bet is to file an WP:AfD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't attempt to impart wisdom by wading in the shallows of the searches I myself have provided. It's "cattle raiding" not "cattle riding" (cattle don't take kindly to riding, except by birds that pick off fleas; otherwise we would have swift-cattle cavalry)  and it has been used specifically for all pastoral and nomadic groups from ancient times to the modern day, and more generally in transformed or figurative usage, for organized activity involving more than one, two, or three cattle.  These pastoral groups, or their modern day professional cognates,  have done the maximum "stealing" of cattle whether considered a sport, an accepted means of survival, or a crime.  The literature overwhelmingly uses that term.  The Wikipedia article Cattle raiding doesn't say "Cattle raiding refers to the stealing of cattle carried out around the world in the Vedic age".  It says, as I've already stated, ""Cattle raiding is the act of stealing cattle."  "Cattle lifting" is widely used in India for cattle stealing by Homo sapiens sapiens (ie culturally and anatomically modern humans), not Panthera tigris tigris, the Bengal tiger.  See my section below on source misrepresentation in Sarah Welch's paraphrasing.
 * Make up your minds guys. What is this article's scope?  Does it include historical material?  If so, there is no choice but to call it "Cattle raiding in India."  Is it the alleged modern stuff of the last few years?  If so, there is no choice but to call it "Cattle lifting in India."   When the much tossed-about David Gilmartin says in his magnum opus, Blood and Water: The Indus River Basin in Modern History (2015), "Protection provided by tribal leaders who could guarantee access to grazing land for cattle and provide support in lean years (sometimes through organizing raiding parties) ..." or "these were the groups overwhelmingly reliant on cattle and on raiding," he did not suddenly become a historian of ancient India, he's talking about the Baloch groups in the Indus river flood plains in the 19th century.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:49, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * And now, if you thought you had seen it all, in keeping with the Keystone cops antecedents of these discussions, a section has been opened by Sarah Welch in Talk:Violence related to cow protection in India. See: Talk:Violence_related_to_cow_protection_in_India   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of content
I removed these two sections because they weren't relevant to cattle theft. At least, I couldn't find anything in the two sources given that talked about cattle theft. Let me know if I missed something.VR talk  04:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Chicken shops? etc: is this due? why isn't 'cattle theft' history due?
Why remove scholarly sources and 'cattle theft'-related content, but add stuff such as:
 * According to India's National Sample Survey Office, reported in The Hindu: "Our analysis shows that the number of Hindus eating beef/buffalo meat has been declining — 1.89 crore (18 million, 900 thousand) Hindus in 1999-2000 to 1.25 crore (12 million 500 thousand) in 2011-12. ... In all the States belonging to the Hindi heartland, less than one per cent of Hindus eat beef/buffalo meat."


 * According to India's National Sample Survey Office, reported in The Hindu: "In Haryana, Mohammad Shakir, a meat-seller in the Jama Masjid area — the hub of buffalo meat in Gurugram — tells a different story. He says that business was booming for a decade till 2010, which coincides with the survey duration. But, he attributed the decrease in demand for buffalo meat over the past four-five years to the mushrooming of chicken shops."

Is this 'chicken shops etc' relevant and DUE to 'cattle theft in India' subject? And history undue? Why?, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * They are a lot more due than Gardener Harris's highly imaginative edits before he decided he couldn't hack India and chickened out. Please start a page on his hysterical stray dog problem in India.  And I don't mean hysterical in the sense of funny, but in the sense of someone who has lost touch with reality.  Not all NY Times Delhi journals are factual.  Some are unmitigated nonsense.  Please don't remove any of the NSS results.  I will be adding many more to give proof that Mr GH is UNDUE of the worst kind.  As for chicken, which GH himself mentions, it is to point out that increased chicken consumption has resulted in decreased red meat consumption whether lamb or beef.  30 years ago, chicken was rare, more expensive, in contrast to mutton and beef; today it is the opposite, resulting in less Indians eating beef or lamb. That is happened in India, giving the lie to GH's spectacular claims that upper class Hindus are eating beef (cooked dead cow).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * PS In other words, there is nothing, zilch, nada, zero, cipher, in the "Contemporary situation" section. There are no increased cattle thefts.  I am in Delhi and I asked the local police and they said, "It is very rare."  It is a Hindu nationalist fantasy.  Believe me, there is little chance that you'll be able to put any of that in here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Fowler&fowler: Allow me to ignore your WP:FORUM-y lecture again. You are free to hold whatever opinion / prejudice / wisdoms you believe, but they do not matter to wikipedia. Your personal interview in Delhi and colorful language may be okay for your blog, not this article. For this article, The New York Times is a reliable news source, and you yourself have included it in the related Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 article. No double standards please, accepting it when it supports your agenda/POV, rejecting it when it doesn't. We need to maintain NPOV as reflected in the RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is little chance that even while sleepwalking, i.e. sleep editing, I would put Gardener Harris's nonsense in an article. Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»


 * Harris and The New York Times article is RS and it stays. Try RSN / DRN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Source for the lead sentence
Fowler&fowler: You added this into the lead sentence. I leave it to you to provide quote etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not add it into the lead sentence. I made it the lead sentence.  It has all the sources.  It doesn't need "rustling" (a term of American English) in it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Cattle theft history
Fowler&fowler: Please explain why you are deleting cattle theft in India history section? Alf Hiltebeitel source and others are scholarly RS, some content is with embedded quotes. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the history section as it was the subject of a dispute about source misinterpretation. I have already explained the problems in your paraphrasing, acknowledged by Vanamonde.  Please add your proposed sentences here, and I will be happy to examine them.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde actually confirmed that the source supports history of cattle theft, see this! Vanamonde wrote, "The content is, to a lesser or greater extent, supported by solid sources, and as such is encyclopedic in nature." You are also removing numerous other sources and content sourced from them, which we have not discussed above. For example, by Alf Hiltebeitel. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * would appreciate your review and comments, when you have a moment. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Try the correct userID. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That is Vanamonde's post of 8 July 2017. After that I showed source misinterpretation, in a detailed section (see here, which Vanamonde, has acknowledged in this post 10 July 2017, which says, "Let me point out in passing, though, that while Fowler has uncovered some problems with source interpretation, they are at the level of the description and nature of cattle theft, not it's existence or its notability as a topic. So I'd recommend we focus on improvements within the scope of this particular article."  When you discuss problem edits such as yours, you don't keep adding them to the article.  Please discuss them on the talk page first.  Those edits will need to be removed from the article.  They have issues of source misinterpretation. I can't keep writing long sections here that take me hours to analyze and respond to misinterpreted text which has been quickly added by you. Again, post them here in bite size bits, and I will go through them.  Remove them from the article.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, even there and once again Vanamonde is agreeing that the source confirms the historical existence of cattle theft, when he wrote the source does not dispute  "it's existence or its notability as a topic. So I'd recommend we focus on improvements within the scope of this particular article."  The article does so, when it summarizes "David Gilmartin states that cattle theft was the most prevalent crime in British India, yet it was "marked by contradictions".[5]" It is you who is misrepresenting the sources, and now you misrepresent Vanamonde. I have already welcomed improvements, and my summary sentence "Cattle theft was a common crime in British India, states David Gilmartin. " was improved upon by an editor other than me, two days ago. I suggest you try DRN. Good luck. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I am not debating here the notability or existence of the topic, only what Vanamonde has called "problems with source interpretation" which are "at the level of description and nature of cattle theft." When an article has such content, it is best that the editor who is adding it not continue to add more. That is why I am requesting that the proposed additions be discussed in bite-sized bits on the talk page first, so that I can check it for source misinterpretation. If you will continue to disregard my request, you will created a disputed article. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I replaced it with an exact quote, to avoid any inadvertent "problems with source interpretation". Let us wait for Vanamonde to find some time and comment. Or, you are welcome to try the DRN process, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No you take the Hindu nationalist POV that you are relentlessly adding to the article, to DRN or any other Wikipedia forum. For your information the Vedic Age is not mythology, but the age of Indian history posited by historians such as Romila Thapar based on details described in the Vedas, which themselves are largely mythological.  I have reverted the article to before you had the chance to add the nonsense.  Again, take it to whichever forum you want.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The section is titled mythology and texts!! Try DRN. Good luck, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus anywhere on this talk page to include "mythology" in the scope of this article. I have removed that section.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It is you who added Burjor Avari to the lead, and it is discussing texts, mythology and rituals! The lead is a summary of the main article. Your edits and arguments are getting ever more strange! Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I added, "There were many royal rituals in ancient India. They involved such activities as cattle raids, ..." It is a part of the larger quote from India: The Ancient Past: A History of the Indian Subcontinent from c. 7000, a book on history, not mythology. The page from which I have taken the quote, see here] is about history, not mythology. To say that "a king performed rituals which involved cattle raiding" is a statement of history; to discuss the mythological content of the ritual in any detail is a statement of mythology. Again, there is no consensus here to stuff this article with mythology. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Those royal rituals are not from "history" books of ancient India. They are from ritual/religious/mythogy-filled texts of India. See Avari. Consensus =/= F&f's permission. I suggest we keep a short summary of "cattle theft" in mythology+texts of ancient and medieval India., , , , others watching this page: what do you think? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously, if a king in, say, the Gupta period, 5th century CE, accidentally died in a Vedic fire ritual, leading to great strife in the country, are we going to talk about the recorded history of the death and the ensuing strife or the symbolic meaning of the ritual in esoteric Hindu mythology? The part that I have quoted from Avari, is from a section called: Clan states and kingdoms (which if you scroll down to the next page shows a map of India, which owes more to 19th-century British cartography than early Iron Age mythology).  The quote itself is a part of a paragraph about history, "Continuing the late Vedic tradition, the post-Vedic kings use to hold major ceremonies of sacrifice ..." ( see here).  Again, please examine the title of the book.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem for you, Sarah Welch, and for the very existence of this article, is that there is no reliable and firm connection between cattle theft in present-day India and the proliferation of illegal slaughterhouses, except of course for Gardener Harriss's unsubstantiated musings and ruminations in his Delhi journal (part opinion piece, and part vignette-ridden literary nonfiction) article in the NY Times, or Hindu nationalist family stories.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * PS As I had expected, if you do a search for 'Crime in India" AND "Cattle theft" in Google scholar, you get 9 sources and they are all about historical India, nothing beyond 1950  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

We disagree. There are multiple sources already in the article that link cattle theft -> slaughterhouses/meat demand, in addition to the one from The New York Times article. I get over 1,000 sources when I search "cattle theft" AND India on Google scholar, of which few hundred were published in last 40 years. Hundreds again when I search "cattle theft" AND India AND slaughter. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Really, a few hundred? Why don't you reproduce three here, published since 1960 which make a direct connection between cattle theft and the proliferation of illegal slaughterhouses in India?  The search for <<"cattle theft" "illegal slaughterhouse' India> yields nothing for all articles written after 1960.  What gives?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that we should keep the history section here, because it provides some historical details about this issue. Sources pass wP:RS. Capitals00 (talk) 10:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood the issue. This topic has nothing except the history.  There is no real evidence that cattle theft is a big problem in India today.  It goes unmentioned in the Government of India's annual crime report.  Even in 1967, it constituted less than 2% of overall crime.  There is no evidence that the isolated cases of cattle theft found on Youtube add to the illegal slaughterhouse problem in India.  These slaughterhouses buy their buffalo from the people who own them, the buffaloes are often sick, old, infertile, or male.  Many would not be accepted by the legal slaughterhouses, where the sellers receive less money because of taxes and fee for a veterinary exam.  If all the illegal slaughterhouses in UP were getting their cattle as a result of theft, you would have a calamitous political disaster in Delhi, demonstrations, a veritable revolt against the sitting government. In other words, this is only a historical topic.   It is not mythology, and that garbage needs to be removed, but still a historical topic that had its origins in the late second millennium BCE India (i.e. the early Vedic period) and lasted until the early 1970s.  Where are the cattle being stolen, except in Gardener Harris's highly imaginative parting shots at India before he chickened out, and left abruptly   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:03, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Incorrect again! F&f alleges, "It goes unmentioned in the Government of India's annual crime report". But, Crime stats in India 2015 does report cattle theft in Table 8.4. It has been a line item in annual reports for a long time. The ~8,800+ cattle thefts per year registered are significant, as are the 28 deaths between 2010-2017, or 4 deaths per year per ~1,000,000,000+ people. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)


 * What I meant was this. If you look in the annual NCRB reports Crime in India from 1953 to 2015, you see a change after the 1960s.  From 1953 to sometime in the early 70s, if my memory serves me right, cattle theft used to be a part of their main text, and early on in the main text. The rate of this crime (in the internationally accepted rate of incidence per 100,000 humans) use to be relatively high in the 50s and 60s.  Then, as I said, sometime in the 70s, cattle theft rates fell precipitously (perhaps because of increased mechanization in agriculture oxen/bullocks were less sought after (as draft animals), would be my guess, or improvement in general surveillance), and the main text of these reports no longer carried "Cattle theft" as an item.  It was simply lumped together in "Theft."  It did continue in the appendices, but there too, in my memory, the rates kept falling, until by 2010 or thereabouts it was 0.5 (or some such) annually per 100,000 population, ie. one case of cattle theft (which includes both cows and buffalo) per 200,000 population annually.  This really is pretty low.  We can't pin an entire article's reason to exist on vignette-rich musings by Gardener Harris.  Where's the beef, if you'll pardon the expression?  Well, I post something in the article instead of wasting my time here.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Disputes, sources, etc.
My apologies to those who pinged me: I have been caught up elsewhere. The heat to light ratio in the above discussion is poor: therefore, I am starting a new section here. : I do think you need to back down a little bit: while MSW might have created a version of the article with certain biases, I know from experience that that is not intentional. : while I appreciate your enthusiasm for expanding this article, F&F has highlighted some issues with the use of sources. These issues are not insoluble, but they are substantive. Therefore, I strongly suggest that you take it very slow. Most of the editors involved in this dispute are fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia, and there is no deadline. Bring your sources to the talk page, where consensus can be built on which of them can and should be used. Propose a structure here on the talk page, for which consensus can be built. And once we have consensus, then move forward with adding material to the article. If it becomes necessary we can also resort to reverting to the pre-dispute version and/or fully protecting the page; but I hope everybody here is experienced enough that that will not be necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 1: Table of Cattle Theft Statistics 1953-2013
I've made a table mostly based on statistics on the National Crime Record Bureau statistics, which shows the decline of rates of cattle theft (incidence per 100,000 population both human and cattle). For the entire column Volume of cattle theft per 100K cattle population, and for roughly half the column "Volume of cattle theft per 100K human population), I have used simple arithmetic:  Everything else is from the NCBR website.  See WP:CALC.  I checked the ncbr website tables and indeed their computations are bases on simple ratios, not more sophisticated statistical measures.  Until, 1972, they use to give the incidence, but thereafter cattle-theft seemed to have lost its heritage status in the main annual criminal reports, appearing only in the appendices at the end.  Anyway here is the table:

As you will see that the rate of cattle theft reported has gone from 7.4 per 100,000 of the human population in 1953 to 0.64 per 100,000 in 2013 (per 100,000 being the international standard in crime reports). Also the ratio of cattle theft to overall cognizable crime has gone down considerably. I would like to introduce some version of this table in the article and would like to hear what others think. Some aspects of this table has been acknowledged in the article:, which states, "The share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014." Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  10:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That must have taken a lot of work, thanks for that. Two comments. First, I'd be a little concerned about including this table without coverage for the phenomenon in secondary sources. They do not have to reproduce all the stats, of course, but more than just one piece should be pointing to the decline. Second, more specifically, I think the column(s) about generic crime should be removed; they are unnecessarily complicating the picture. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I concur with the two comments of Vanamonde. Additionally, the "Total bovine population of India by livestock census" column above seems to be an OR, in its assumption c(1951) = c(1953), c(1956) = c(1958) etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal 2: A picture?
I'm in Delhi these days. I managed to take a video yesterday of stray cattle at a traffic stop. They weren't eating plastic or trash, but good old grass and leaves of hedges. Two of the older ones were limping a bit, or maybe taking longer to adjust to walking on the asphalt. Don't know if this is relevant to this page .... It is better viewed in the original uncompressed resolution. There were police and paramilitary standing around with automatic rifles, but the only sentient beings they were stopping were motorcyclists without helmets. These cattle seemed safe. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Not verifiable in RS, just like your opposition to the use of the cattle sacrifice image in another wikipedia article, an image that was tagged "Delhi, etc" by the user who uploaded it with creative commons license. User uploads are unreliable, and we can't assume one user is more reliable than another. No double standards please, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * But if you view the source file on Commons. It shows the "Prithviraj Road" sign very clearly.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I am now adding this video to the article.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no verifiability in an RS for the video, not any verifiability that Cattle lifting has happened where this video was made. I am open to including this or another consensus image / video in the main article, as an illustration, but in the section where cattle lifting of unpenned cattle is discussed. For example, in contemporary section, as a compromise. Perhaps the lead image could just be an Indian cow, or we don't need a lead image. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Take it to WT:INDIA like I did and gain consensus for removing it. Or go to some Wikipedia forum.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You must be kidding! In one case you remove an image that you question and lecture "discuss it on WT:INDIA to add a contested image". Now you do the reverse: you add an image that another editor questions and lecture "discuss it on WT:INDIA to remove a contested image". Why apply one set of rules for yourself, and another for others? Take this to DRN etc if you wish. Good luck, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right. I shouldn't be squandering a nice video of gentle blameless creatures&mdash;which I thankfully had the opportunity of seeing in real life and which you are seeing on a computer screen, without affect or memory&mdash;on a page so thickly settled with vengeance. Thank you. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Folks, this is a silly debate. Fowler, that video doesn't add much that a still from the same video could not; so I'd prefer a still. MSW, why does the image need to be from a location from which cattle were stolen? Harris says cows wander the streets in Delhi; here are cows wandering the streets. That's all the image needs to illustrate. We don't even need to include the commentary about "some author". Just cows in the street. Vanamonde (talk) 13:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal. I'm happy to remove it.  Thanks.

Gardiner Harris's Delhi Journal article in NY Times and the Italian professors who have quoted it
(Sorry to make this long: but, sadly, I have to present the evidence) For many years, the NY Times has had a " Journal" feature, where is the name of a city, town, or village about which, or from where, the article is written. Such "Journal" articles are in part feature articles, part opinion pieces, part travelogues, part a chance to attempt literary non-fiction, and so forth. They are not exactly things we can quote on Wikipedia, especially not as the main source of a thesis. Examples are Ellen Barry's Delhi Journal: In a City Accustomed to Seeing the Dead, Bodies Remain Unknown and Unclaimed, New Delhi Journal: A Eunuch in India Campaigns as a Political ‘None of the Above’, , Delhi Journal: Desperate for Slumber in Delhi, Homeless Encounter a ‘Sleep Mafia’ and so forth.

Gardiner Harris was in India for couple of years as a reporter. He wrote a couple of "Journal" pieces: Pangti Journal: Falcon Hunters Become Fervent Preservationists, New Delhi Journal: Where Streets Are Thronged With Strays Baring Fangs, ... Harris wrote a piece: Delhi Journal: For New Breed of Rustlers, Nothing Is Sacred, which is the basis for the implied if not explicit argument in this article that "cattle theft" is on the rise, that the abducted cows are going straight to the illegal abattoirs, and so forth. This piece is being supplemented by a half page reference to it in a 80 page book by two Italian academics at the University for Foreigners in Perugia, which first briefly paraphrases Harris's piece and then quotes him directly, all in half a page, without accepting his thesis anywhere. The book's "About the authors" page says: "here: Rosanna Masiola is professor of English Language and Translation at the University for Foreigners of Perugia, Italy. She holds degrees from the Universities of Venice and Trieste, where she also taught. Masiola worked as in-house translator with Generali, Trieste. She has published twenty books: Questioni Traduttive (1988), Pianeti Proibiti. Descrizione Traduzione Intertesti (1997), La traduzione è servita! Food for Thought (2004), Il Fascino nel Tradurre (2009). Masiola co-authored with Renato Tomei, West of Eden: Botanical Discourse Contact Languages and Translation (2009).Introduction is co-authored; Masiola has written chapter 2 of this book Renato Tomei is assistant professor of English Language and Translation at the University for Foreigners of Perugia, Italy. He holds a joint PhD in linguistics from the University of Addis Ababa and the University of the West Indies where he is engaged in post-doctoral research. He teaches legal English at postgraduate and doctoral level. His recent publications include Jamaican English in Ethiopia: From Africa to Africa (2014). He is the founder of Youths of the World (NGO) and is committed to cultural exchanges with Africa and the Caribbean.Introduction is co-authored; Tomei has written chapters 3,4,5, and 6 of this book."

It is clear their background is in translation. They are therefore not experts on cattle theft. Yet, they are not only being cited in a manner to somehow suggest this, and being described as "Professors of Human and Social Sciences." Of course, their actual appointment might be in the School of Human Sciences etc, but it is clear what their specialty is. I believe both references should be removed for now. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  07:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is again a personal opinion of Fowler&fowler, and OR. A journal can also mean "a publication/collection of articles that deals with a particular subject", such as a sociology / news / region / science journal. I am equally surprised with the implied argument/expectation that professors/academia professionals who do not belong to a Department on Cattle Theft are unqualified as scholars! It is incorrect to allege/imply that Masiola and Tomei know nothing other than literally translate words, or that they are incapable of summarizing / reviewing primary and secondary literature on social topics / law / issues. Their peer reviewed publications are better RS than the primary news and other sources F&f has been freely using in other articles. One can verify the association of Rosanna Masiola and Renato Tomei, with Social and Human Sciences Department at a university in Italy, here. Allow me to ignore the rest. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * MSW, can you please discuss the specific issue here without getting into F&F's editing elsewhere? Likewise, can we stick to what F&F has said, rather than trying discern implications? Vanamonde (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: what is the specific issue in light of our wikipedia policies? Please identify both for me, possibly with verifiable links, to help me to respond better. Thank you, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The specific issue is that the academics in question are experts in a field other than that which they are commenting on. This does not necessarily disqualify them as an RS, but it is a concern. I have yet to decide for myself how serious a concern this is, which is why I had yet to express an opinion here. Vanamonde (talk) 12:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me add that if the references are kept, and I am not yet certain they should be, we should paraphrase Harris for a couple of sentences, rather than quote for a paragraph. Vanamonde (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I also prefer that Harris quote be replaced with paraphrased content. Harris's news journal in The New York Times is as notable and reliable source as most of those we have used in the Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014 article. I strongly urge that we avoid double standards in establishing or accepting the notability and reliability of published sources because 'allowing a type of source in one case and not the other' leads to POV-pushing by one group or by another group. On Rosanna Masiola and Renato Tomei, I would be concerned if they were publishing a primary research paper on cattle theft or something outside of their field of expertise. But, if you read the cited publication, it is a summary and review of other sources, in particular The New York Times article on cattle theft that those two authors considered to be a reliable source. In other words, Masiola and Tomei are saying nothing new, offering no path breaking diagnosis or treatment or analysis in a field outside of their expertise, they are summarizing another source, and therefore providing us with evidence of notability. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Gardiner Harris' reliability as a journalist and source, including those of his publications on India, can be verified from the various scholarly journal articles that have cited him (see 1, 2, etc). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I have just skimmed through Masiola and Tomei's book, the entire book. It is actually a very interesting book, and I wish I had more time. They are linguists with specialty in translation. This particular book is about nuances and errors, intentional and unintentional, in translation in law, especially international law, and how it has historically given some parties advantages over others, and how they might be avoided etc. The cattle stealing is really only an example they took for a comparative study to make their point. Their section on India says: "The conclusive section of our comparative case study on cattle stealing is emblematic of loss of traditions and identity in a world of rising hunger and crime. Increasing meat consumption has meant that holy cows are a target for unscrupulous thieves. Although these animals are mangy and scrawny, they are left to freely roam the streets, making them easy prey.  In India there is another English term, which is informal and denotes shoplifting.  There are people who volunteer to shelter these animals at night and receive funds from wealthy Indians for this.  There is also a large shelter outside the metropolitan area where thousands of cattle live.  This is a recent report from the Delhi Journal in the New York Times: (here Harris is quoted, 2 paragraphs, without comment) The aim of this comparative study was to demonstrate the dynamics that create this type of crime and the differences in language and law, as reported in the media. ... Laws differ sharply. The language in which laws and news are reported is English. The definition of the crime and the law differ, as the English term varies in all these postcolonial areas..."

They conclude their book with: "There are many examples of manipulation, and history abounds with intentional mistakes, misunderstanding, different interpretations and ambiguities. Furthermore, translation is a human activity and so it represents, in international contexts a commitment or a lack of commitment to openness and transparency in international relations on the part of national governments. Now, the real challenge is to overcome linguistic barriers, in order to reduce and minimize errors, misunderstandings and blurred meanings in international communications, international legislation, negotiations and diplomacy. The importance of press releases and news coverage of events related to international law, civil rights, criminal law and extradition are paramount in the context of influencing public opinion and creating consensus. ... Errors may also come in a more subtle, less obvious form, such as an adverb, article or a punctuation mark that changes the perceived meaning of a sentence or a clause. They may also come in the form of polysemy and lack of lexical and conceptual symmetry, as seen in Chaps. 2 and 3. The importance of how the media reports on criminal cases in different languages (different Englishes) and the localization of crimes such as 'cattle stealing' is thematically analyzed in Chap. 4 along with the problems of globalization of crimes and violence. The implications of colonialism and postcolonial debate impacting on the global issues of today like civil rights, human rights (Garre 1999) famine and diasporic migration call for ethics in translation and competent communication—both of which are desirable and possible. The common theme of all the chapters is the manipulation of language and the law to gain power (Conley and O'Barr 1998) and the translation of treaties in colonial and postcolonial contexts."

I think the authors would be perplexed or amused (depending on their disposition) if they saw us quoting them as a source for cattle stealing, rather than the for the changes in translation of English Common Law in how it is interpreted in the case of former colonies in the specific context of cattle stealing. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  14:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)


 * We do not have, nor do we need a WP:AUTHORS-NOT-AMUSED or WP:AUTHORS-AMUSED guideline for screening notability and RS. Please note that chapter 4, sections 4.1 through 4.6 are summaries about cattle stealing/raiding in different parts of the world, over ten pages. Suggests that these professors considered various sources related to this subject. For the rest, please see above, as there is no need to repeat., , others active in this article: I am open to what we summarize from various sources, and how. But, I oppose double standards in our notability-reliability screen for sources for the same subject or closely related topics. I request you to review the related articles, the cited sources and I welcome you to rephrase/revise whatever is appropriate, when you find time. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fowler is correct in suggesting we should not be presenting the statements about cattle theft as if they are conclusions reached by Tomei and Masiola. At the same time, there is no question that being cited in their book gives Harris credibility. Personally I am now inclined to include a couple of sentences, or a short paragraph, cited to both Harris and Tomei/Masiola. Only the former should be mentioned by name; or if we mention the others, we should do so only to make it clear that they are discussing Harris' statements. There is insufficient reason here to remove these altogether; that's asking for a bit much. Vanamonde (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I not just saying that Masiola and Tomei did not reach that conclusion; I'm also saying that they are not anywhere agreeing with Harris's conclusion. Masiola and Tomei are describing in the different sections of chapter 4 attempts to employ the English language for different purposes around the theme of "cattle stealing." Their examples are English and non-English law, colonial law, idiom, drug wars, loss of native traditions and so forth. Being cited in M&T's book might make Harris's attempt to translate into English idiom the loss of Indian "traditions and identity" a notable one of such translation. But is does nothing to make Harris's journalistic conclusions about increased cattle theft one whit more credible.  M&T are merely paraphrasing Harris's remarks as examples of one such attempt, not agreeing with them.  Please reread my quote of the authors before they say: "This is a recent report from the NY Times etc."  The authors quote a lot of people as examples.  They quote Gandhi: "To give millions a knowledge of English is to enslave them ... Is it not a painful thing that if I want to go to a court of justice, I must employ the English language as a medium: that, when I became a barrister, I may not speak my mother-tongue and that someone else should have to translate to me from my own language?  Is this not perfectly absurd?  Is this not a sign of slavery?"  The authors there are not agreeing with Gandhi, but suggesting that he was a person who saw language in terms of power.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I am aware, in the four years since Harris's anecdotal account, there is nothing out there that has supported his conclusions with anything factual. If the National Crime Records Bureau of India is showing decreasing trends for 60 years: from 23,000+ reported cases annually in 1953  to 6,000+ cases annually in 2013, there's hadn't been a significant upswing, when he wrote that article.  Nowhere does Harris say, "theft has gone up by 4%, or 7%," saying only that when night falls on the city of Delhi the cattle thieves begin driving around in big trucks looking for a straggler cow here, another there, among the 40,000 free roaming-ones of the city.  How many are they taking annually?  And how does he know that that number has gone up?  From hearsay or records? For if it is the latter, it should show up in the official records, but, as I've already said, those, until 2013, the year of publication of Harris's article, don't show any significant rise in reported cattle theft, and after 2013, show only a marginal increase.   A much better account, without unsupported conjectures, is Fred de Sam Lazaro's PBS report: India's sacred cows, and, as you can see, we can't use that either.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, there is an argument to treat Harris with caution, but not to omit him altogether, because I see no evidence that he is a fringe source deserving of zero weight. A couple of sentences with in-text attribution is necessary, but I have not the motivation to fight for such a minor point. If the two of you still disagree, the way to go is to open an RfC. Vanamonde (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the whole contemporary situation" is minor. It constituted 0.172% of theft by value and 1.37% of theft by reported cases in 2013 when Harris wrote the article.  And theft is just one category of Indian Penal Code crimes (others being murder, rape, robbery, cyber crime, etc).  As I've already said many times, this is what happens when articles get created on the rebound by people who are miffed that their original ones did not garner consensus.  I'm in a hurry, and in no appetite either, but how about something along the lines of: "'Gardiner Harris asserted in an NYT article (to be made precise) that cattle theft was on the rise in 2013, spurred in part by the demand created by the willingness of more Indians to eat meat. His article was cited by Masiola and Tomeo as a notable example of an attempt to translate for English readers the loss of tradition and identity in Indian society.  Roshan Kishore, in an article in Live Mint (to be made precise), has asserted that India's National Crime Records Bureau statistics show 'The share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014.' (but paraphrased)."   This I believe is the most accurate rendering of the sources.  If there is no agreement, I'm happy to take it to whatever Wikipedia forums there are.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The above personal analysis of F&f is OR, a flawed one again. We can't include OR. What we are agreeing on, so far is that NYT and the source by Italian professors are notable, under wikipedia guidelines, for this and other related articles, given our accepted practices. NYT and similar newspaper sources have been used by F&f / other editors in similar wikipedia articles in closely related topics such as Cow vigilante violence in India since 2014. In the spirit of compromise, I would accept the following in the form of a short para: [1] to avoid interpretation-triggered dispute, we "quote exact" from NYT (Harris); [2] carefully include Tomei/Masiola, but make clear they are discussing Harris and not making their own conclusions, [3] if F&f or someone were to find a WP:RS that concludes 'cattle theft is non-existent / minor / whatever in India', or 'cattle theft has nothing to do with cattle vigilante violence', we summarize these as well, along with all those RS that link accusations of cattle theft to cattle vigilantism. But we cannot include OR based on F&f personal analysis / interpretations / beliefs / conclusions in this article. It is the RS which should make the interpretation / conclusion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am not seeing the OR here. The version I would like to see is reasonably close to what Fowler proposed. I don't think we need a separate sentence for the Italians, though. We are using their source to say "Harris said this and people paid attention to it", and so all we need to do is to include the first sentence Fowler proposed, with two sources: Harris and the Italians. We can deal with Kishore later. Vanamonde (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The "As far as I am aware, in the four years since Harris's anecdotal account, there is nothing out there that has supported his conclusions with anything factual. If the National Crime Records Bureau of India is showing decreasing trends for 60 years (...)." etc is OR, because that is an "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" (wiki-linking/edit-diffing here not for you as that is not necessary, but for other page watchers). If you are referring to the proposed para by F&f, I suggest we include a few more sentences from Harris to more accurately summarize it, and make the summary more neutral. Right now, that para reads as if it is trying to present the OR + POV, "cattle theft is a minor issue, Harris is wrong". I am fine with including parts of the stats table above, perhaps with yearly data from 2008 to 2015, as it goes to show the number of "reported" cattle thefts per year per NCRB (the data shows that the theft trend is more complicated). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That was my only offer.
 * I've been reading the NY Times since the days Joe Lelyveld was the bureau chief in Delhi. The "Delhi/Bombay/Calcutta/edc Journal" articles of the New York Times are part opinion pieces, part human interest stories and feature stories. Those are not WP:Reliable sources, see WP:NEWSORG. Cows in Delhi alone have garnered a handful of such journalistic sketches in additional to Gardiner Harris's from which you would like to quote. There is:


 * Barry Bearak's New Delhi Journal; Sacred Cows Are Wily Too; Just Try Catching One, which begins with, "It takes eight men to capture a street-smart cow, ...It is estimated that 40,000 cows wander the streets of this city, and most seem well informed of their sacred status. They are a study in nonchalance, slowly crossing a highway or, as many prefer, relaxing in the right-turn lane of a busy intersection."
 * Jeremy Kahn's New Delhi Journal: Urban Cowboys Struggle With India’s Sacred Strays, November 4, 2008, which begins with, "Brajveer Singh does not own a wide-brimmed hat, leather boots or a pair of jeans. ... But he can lay claim to being a real-life urban cowboy. Mr. Singh is among the dozens of men who spend their days roping cattle on the streets of this city. ...  He and the other cow catchers all have tales of being injured on the job, suffering everything from rope burns to broken bones. One even lost an eye when he was gored by a bull. "  and goes on to say, "Over the past two years, the city government says, it has taken more than 20,000 cows off the street. But this still leaves an estimated 5,000 to 12,000 strays."
 * There is Gardiner Harris's, Delhi Journal: For New Breed of Rustlers, Nothing Is Sacred, who begins with, "When night falls in this gritty capital, gangs troll the darkened streets looking for easy prey among a portion of the city’s vast homeless population; thousands have been rounded up and carried off in trucks in recent years." and goes on to say, "Criminals round up some of the roughly 40,000 cattle that wander the streets of this megacity."
 * And there are hundreds of other "Journals" from India written during the last 35 years. If we take them to supply reliable facts: can we say, "There were 40,000 stray cows in Delhi in 1998, according to Barry Bearak, but between 25,000 and 32,000 in 2008, according to Jeremy Kahn, and again 40,000 in 2013, according to Gardiner Harris?" Can we quote Barry Bearak that it takes eight men to catch a stray cow in Delhi to transport to a cow shelter, (quote Jeremy Kahn) that the cow catchers are commonly injured on the job, sometimes seriously,  and but (also Gardiner Harris), that in the middle of the night, however, the cows become easy prey for trolling gangs who want to take them to be slaughtered?
 * Like I said that was only one offer.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * If these or any other reports have something relevant to cattle theft, I welcome a summary from them as well. Please see the alternate proposal below. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternate proposal
Draft: Gardiner Harris states in a 2013 Delhi Journal report, published by The New York Times, that "Cattle rustling, called 'lifting' here, is a growing scourge in New Delhi, as increasingly affluent Indians develop a taste for meat, even the flesh of cows, which are considered sacred in Hinduism. Criminals round up some of the roughly 40,000 cattle that wander the streets of this megacity and sell them to illegal slaughterhouses located in villages not far away."[1a-GH][2a-MT] According to Harris, "the demand for beef keeps rising [in India], many here say, and with it the prevalence of cattle rustling. Last year, the police in Delhi arrested 150 rustlers, a record number. (...) Typically, the rustlers creep into the city at night. When the criminals spot stray cattle and few onlookers they stop the truck, push out a ramp and use a rope to lead the cow to its doom."[1a-GH] According to Roshan Kishore, in a 2015 article published in Live Mint, among various crime categories relating to property theft reported by India's National Crime Records Bureau, "The share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014."[3a-RK] According to the annual crime statistic reports of the National Crime Records Bureau, there were 6,272 reported cases of cattle theft in 2011,[4a] 7,706 cases in 2013,[4b] and 8,815 cases in 2015.[4c]

How about the above as a compromise? The economics of cattle theft in India etc can be discussed elsewhere with additional sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Forget it. It is a "Delhi Journal" article. I have already given examples.  I can give close to a hundred more.  They are not WP:RS.  If those are allowed, why not grim assessments of Gardiner Harris himself.  Why not Harris's parting shot at Delhi referred to in that grim assessment, which ends with, "We are moving back to Washington this week.The boys are excited. Aden, 12, wants a skateboard and bicycle, accouterments of freedom in a place he is allowed to wander by himself."  Can we add that to the Delhi page: "Gardiner Harris has implied that Delhi does not allow people to wander by themselves.?"  Tell that to Delhi's poor and mentally ill.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Allow me to ignore all the forum-y commentary. The link F&f offers and the rest has nothing to do with cattle theft in India. The claim that The New York Times is not WP:RS for this article or in closely related articles, particularly when F&f and others have used NYT and similar newspaper sources as WP:RS, needs a wikipedia community wide discussion. Double standards in determining notability and reliability of sources, in the same or related articles / topics, creates NPOV issues and POV-pushing, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I would admit that the Gardiner Harris article is short on facts, trying to weave a story with hearsay. So I would suggest, delete the blockquote taken from the article, and mention factual information from it, if any, within the narrative.
 * I don't think the magnitude of cattle theft has increased particularly, but it is certainly hitting the headlines. Here are some: 2016, Ghaziabad, 2016, Assam, 2017, Hyderabad, 2017. I can't say whether the increase in the headlines is because it has become topical or because there is a genuine concern. It is believable that with the various laws against cow-slaughter and the increasing demand for meat, the racketeering would have increased. But was it a problem before the bans?
 * The number of cattle smuggled into Bangladesh is being given as 2 million per year. Modi's crackdown is hitting the Bangladeshis hard. Reuters, The Telegraph, Christian Science Monitor, Hindustan Times, with some data. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the last set of sources say that the smuggled cattle were stolen. Smuggling may or may not be a problem, but if 2 million were being stolen every year, they would constitute 300 times the reported cattle thefts in India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3: Please propose a draft. I am fine with any consistent set of standards in picking sources, and 'what is and what is not summarized' for this article and closely related articles. Newspaper and advocacy groups do interpretation / story weaving about current events all the times. It is inappropriate to present sources that "weave a story with hearsay" as truth for one side/POV, and object to doing the same for a different side/POV. There are sources such as those already cited in this article that link "mass theft of cattle" to smuggling into Bangladesh. Indeed "reported theft =/= actual theft", and smuggled cattle may include cattle considered stolen, considered lost, or etc. I am also open to retitling the article to Cattle theft and smuggling in India or Cattle-related crimes in India or something, in order to reach a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't waste more of my time. The article is about cattle theft.  I reject this.  I propose we go to the RfC and whatever else there is: independent expert evaluation, ArbCom.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh lordy, why are we back to square one again? Don't answer that. A block quote is not appropriate, mostly because if we resort to using quotes because we cannot agree on how to paraphrase, the article will be overrun. We need a one-two sentence summary of what Harris is saying; which, primarily, is that cattle-theft is growing, because people including upper-caste hindus are developing a taste for meat including beef. That's really all we should be saying, because as Fowler points out, smuggling =/= theft. If that sounds like we are "disproving" Harris, that's not our problem, because that is not what we are doing; we are summarizing his views, which is entirely appropriate, and that of other commentators, which is also appropriate. MSW, engaging in analysis of the sources on the talk page is not original research. That is what the talk page is for. If Fowler had posted that into the article, then it would be a problem. Fowler, we are not going to ARBCOM with this (or I at least am not: I cannot stop you, though I would strongly advise against it). ARBCOM is for conduct; this is about content. You could try an RFC, as I suggested above, or DRN. Keep in mind, though, that anybody coming in for such a process will have even less knowledge of the sources than any of use already involved. Vanamonde (talk) 04:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, having done many RfCs and DRN, and even ArbCom comments etc for others, I'm well aware of the reality. I am just frustrated.  I'm frustrated most that I'm wasting time on a topic that I believe is bogus.  Maybe I should walk away from this article, just as I did with Gandhi's assassination.  (I was at Birla House, the site of his assassination, yesterday afternoon contemplating Gandhi.  I'm sure he would have said, "You can't fight every battle.  Fight only the big ones" or words to that effect).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  04:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde: There are two kinds of analysis of sources, one okay for talk page, one not. Analyzing if an obituary column is paid / advertisement or if a non-University Press publisher is of repute, or whether a newspaper may be considered reliable because of its internal review standards, or a university website for a BLP article is RS.... all such analysis is okay. But analyzing whether the research published by a much cited or respected professor or the research published in a peer reviewed RS is "nonsense / wrong" is not. When a side or source is suppressed after such a personal analysis and interpretations of RS, within an article or across a particular groups of articles, we take a side rather than summarize the notable sides, and thereby we violate NPOV policy. Please note that I have no objections to including summary of published RS that criticize/analyze either side. But, it is highly problematic from NPOV perspective to "suppress RS based on non-published personal analysis of various RS on a wikipedia article talk page". I believe the term OR for such personal analysis is succinct and spot on because it is "an analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion" not stated by the published sources. In other words, if we can find a published RS that criticizes Harris' article on cattle published by The New York Times, I would welcome a summary from it too. But it is highly problematic to assume NYT is publishing notable/trustworthy content for one side, and not-notable/lies for the other side. It is problematic to consider NYT as "notable + RS" for one side, as well as "not-notable + not-RS" for the other side, in the same or closely related articles, because of a wikipedia editor's personal analysis in colorful language and an analysis for which no published RS has been provided. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * MSW: there are very few things that are actually restricted on a talk page. There are valid reasons for excluding sources, and invalid reasons. If you feel some reasoning is invalid, or not based in policy, say so (In this case you have, but in general); but that doesn't make the reasoning OR. Back on topic: are you still opposed to a one-or two sentence summary of Harris, saying that cattle-theft is growing, because people including upper-caste hindus are developing a taste for meat including beef, and cited to Harris and the two scholars? If so, we likely need an RFC here, and as I have said above those rarely go well because folks' knowledge of the sources is poor. Vanamonde (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I have supported everyone's right to write whatever on the talk page in ARBCOM / AN cases (exclusions: PA, BLP vio, vandalism, etc). Yet, simultaneously I support everyone's right to ignore FORUM-y personal analysis that cites no published RS verifying that analysis. I am not opposed to one or two sentences you suggest. I welcome it. Elsewhere in the article, I suggest considering what Kautilya3 mentions. For example, the note in that NYT article about record 150 arrests in Delhi, relevant financial data, and anything else that fits Kautilya3's suggestion above. We can't assume NYT or similar sources are publishing unfounded baseless lies for one side, but duly researched reliable facts for the other side. Please particularly consider summarizing those parts for which we have multiple sources (already cited in this article). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. I have trimmed the relevant content. Are we collectively willing to move on to the next issue? Vanamonde (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, let's move on. Let's hold Mr Harris's impressionistic volubility to the fire of facts. I propose adding immediately after, " However, a According to The Hindu newspaper, analysis of data published by India's National Sample Survey 2016 shows that less than one per cent of Hindus in the Hindi belt consume beef or buffalo meat. In addition, o Over the ten year period, 1999-2000 to 2011-2012, the consumption of beef or buffalo meat by Hindus in India declined from 19 million to 12.5 million.   Further, a According to Roshan Kishore, writing in Live Mint, analysis of data published by India's National Crime Records Bureau shows that cattle theft declined during the period 1990–2014, both in the number of incidents reported and the value of the property taken.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I find that acceptable. I'd suggest removing the words "However" and "Further", as they add an editorial voice that isn't necessary, given that the meaning is clear without them. These analyses, though, need to be in the article. Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I've corrected the proposed edit, and per WP:BOLD will be adding it to the article. If it is disputed, we can continue the discussion here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Compromises vs RfC
I've been thinking. On the one hand I'm very grateful for the work you have been doing in resolving the differences here. Please accept my admiration not only for your quick wisdom and gentle intelligence, but also for the sense of civic duty you bring to the many pages on which I've crossed paths with you. Not too many Wikipedians are able to manage this. However, on the other hand, I'm wondering more and more, if an approach of putting out little fires here, there, and everywhere, will get us anywhere. What, for example, will we do next? Debate putting in Mr Harris's: "Last year, the police in Delhi arrested 150 rustlers, a record number?" Are we to accept this as received wisdom just because Mr Harris is making his off-handed statements under the aegis of the NY Times? Should we point out that 150 arrests for cattle theft in a city of 19 million people, in terms, of rate of arrest per 100,000 population is not that high? That India had much higher rates for cattle theft arrest for much of the second half of the 20th century? I just reread the Gardiner Harris feature. I'll be frank with you. It is full of errors of the worst kind. Please examine just two sentences that we are including in our paraphrase: "Behind the cattle rustling is a profound shift in Indian society. Meat consumption — chicken, primarily — is becoming acceptable even among Hindus." The Hindus I know have been eating chicken since even before they became Hindus, for the Red Junglefowl was domesticated in India and became the chicken that is now eaten worldwide. What he means is that more Hindus are eating chicken (and even more eating eggs). A significant proportion of Hindus though have always eaten chicken and mutton and eggs. I mean, seriously, how are these sentences reliable by any standards of reliability? I fear that are many more unreliable sentences where these came from, I'm wondering more and more about an RfC. I'm not there yet 100% and will continue supporting your effort here until its conclusion. But I've have some experience with RfCs. If you frame the issue thoughtfully, and advertise in the right places (WikiProject History; WikiProject Economics; WikiProject Philosophy; WikiProject India, ...) you get some very smart people commenting. Pretty much all the major India-related topics I have worked on: British Raj, India, Indian independence movement, Indian mathematics, ... needed to have RfCs before they settled down. For what was being debated were larger questions than just ones of individual sentences. This, article, I believe, is no different. It will set the tone and the standards for all the cow-related articles. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fowler, thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. On the one hand, I understand your concern entirely. On the other hand, there remains the fact that one can make an argument for Harris' inclusion, that is simplistic but still based on policy. Therefore, when we come to what seems to be an irreconcilable difference in ideology or even in positions vis-a-vis sources, we have no option but to work our way through the details, because it does not look like a larger agreement can be reached. In other circumstances, when positions and/or editors come completely out of left field (at the Modi GAR, for instance...) we can disregard a position entirely, as having no basis in policy. That isn't quite the case here; hence my approach of, as you describe it, putting out one small fire after another. As to Harris; my suggestion above was based on presenting his most basic observations, without the details he is using to dramatize the story and which are, as you point out, frequently incorrect. I am not particularly keen on using Harris for a numerical figure at any point; likewise, I would be okay with not using him any more at all. Nonetheless, I'd point out that often the best approach to incorrect sources is to use them, and also to present other sources describing a more accurate view. Vanamonde (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. That makes sense.  Thanks.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde: +1 to "often the best approach to incorrect sources is to use them, and also to present other sources describing a more accurate view". That is exactly my point! A large part of the dispute here seems to stem from a difference in approach on this. In my view, in closely related articles, we can't assume that the same or similar sources must be accurate for one side / POV / certain data, but suppress the same sources for the other side / POV / certain data based on personal OR on the source(s). The best approach is often to identify notable and reliable sources consistently in closely related articles or subject, and then summarize them consistently to the best of our abilities. If we accept a certain quality of sources to be notable and reliable, and summarize news / POV / data, then let us do so consistently. Indeed, I welcome and feel it is best to focus on summarizing other published sources that contest a POV or present alternate/possibly more accurate POV. Such an approach leads to a more NPOV, better quality article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A picture and a video:Between the idea and the reality falls the shadow
Just considering that if someone who already knows more about India than Gardiner Harris is visiting Delhi; is visiting dairies on the outskirts of Delhi whose cattle roam the streets, whose owners estimate maybe one case of a missing cow every five or six months, and they're not sure it is stolen; is talking to sociologists at Delhi university and JNU, who are bemused that this is a "contemporary" topic in crime; is talking even to chefs at trendy restaurants in Delhi which serve buffalo meat, but whose patrons, both Indian and foreign, do not like the yellow fat of cow meat, the inevitable result of foraging. Just considering also that if some mythical virtual creature on Wikipedia is sitting in a library far far away, disconnected with everything about this topic except some obscure sources, which they have no desire to understand, such a mythical creature can hold reality ransom for a very long time. Please don't throw Wiki rules at me, I'm considerig a grim reality. This is depressing work. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC) Far from the mangy scrawny cows referred to in Masiola and Tomei and Harris, these are healthy, stocky, and some are even tagged, but they are hanging out on the sidewalk. The reason, the villagers, told me is not that their owner is too poor, as stated by Mr Harris, but that the villagers' land was requisitioned by the government to build a metro overhead transit system, overpasses, underpasses, and other essentials of the urban life. I hope we can use this as an illustration of how what is factual is location dependent and it changes with time. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fowler, this particular section comes very close to falling foul of NOTFORUM, interesting though I find your speculations. Unless you want the image in the article, I'd honestly suggest you remove it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've scratched out my musings, of course, which I meant to, but forgot. I had thought the still picture, and videos, might have been of some value, but it is not a big deal.  The still is an example of a dairy in a village just outside Delhi whose cows live on the street 24/7.  They're leashed by a short rope when they are being fed and milked, and allowed to roam free at other times.  They certainly were meant to illustrate the very scenes Gardiner Harris was describing,  until we put him on a tight leash as well. For example: "Many of the cattle in Delhi are part of dairy operations and their owners have neither the land nor the money to keep them penned. So the animals graze on grassy medians or ubiquitous piles of trash. Others too old to be milked are often abandoned and left to wander the streets until they die — or get picked up by the rustlers."   The videos, the one in a previous section and the one here, show cows that are not penned.  In the first video they were grazing on the grassy medians of Harris's description.  In the second their feed was being brought to the streets of Harris's description.  But the cows are not quite what the authors are telling us, neither Harris nor Masiola and Tomei, they're not scrawny, not mangy, they weren't feeding on trash, they weren't too old, nor did they seem abandoned.  Not to mention that the owner has plenty money, and 30 years ago had plenty land&mdash;the village's land&mdash; before the government requisitioned it for "development," the overhead metro transit lines, the overpasses, the underpasses, the 16-lane highways of shining urban India, and the cattle whose ancestors had trod well-worn grassy ways, now limp through asphalt ones in a moving urban jungle.  I had thought that a less stereotyped view of the "homeless" cattle, which, it is claimed are the target of thieves, was of some value  But, like I said,  its not a big deal.  This is perhaps not the ideal article for them, nor abduction the association I wish for them.  I have removed them.  Thanks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Updated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

More sources for history section
Vanamonde: Please consider this source, pp. 64-85 etc. The source has been reviewed by other scholars. Also consider this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Remove those sentences/old sources first. Then present the sentences here in small doses, and I will go through them.  I'm sorry, but enough is enough.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Please let Vanamonde review and revise this, when time permits. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, finally getting around to this. The volume edited by Yang looks okay, though obviously it depends on in what context it is being used, and what other sources say. The other source seems to be an oral testimony, and as such I wouldn't call it reliable. Is this the subject of the 4kb removals and additions a few hours ago? Vanamonde (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde: No. These are new, not in article yet. Yet another source to review for this article is, Cattle Theft in the "Arthaśāstra". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The subject of the removal was the old David Gilmartin stuff that we decided had substantive issues. My thought was that since it will require extensive rewriting, it should not remain.  We are favoring a version that was hurriedly added to the article by Sarah Welch in a couple of hours before we all got wise to the creation of this page, and now it is being treated as the status quo, the baseline.  There is also a mythology section, which was quickly added, after a dispute had begunon this page.  I don't see the relevance of mythology.  At the very least, it should be removed until its relevance is established on this page.  Meanwhile, I have to argue every little point about a detailed table on this talk page and defend it against five numbers that are being called a table.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Great on the one hand we have an article that has already celebrated its 80 birthday: Cattle Theft in the "Arthaśāstra", E. H. Johnston, The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, No. 1 (Jan., 1936), pp. 79-83. On the other we have a senior thesis being cited as a reliable source and the recently graduated female who authored it being cited by name. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  07:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cattle theft in the Arthashastra is a non-starter as far as I can tell, as it's an old analysis of a very old text. If a more recent secondary source had done the same analysis, it may be a different matter. Fowler, what is this thesis you mention? That should not be in the article. I avoid using even master's and PhD theses unless no option exists. Vanamonde (talk) 07:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Here it is, a senior thesis at Western Somethingorother U: "The rounding up and stealing of cattle in India, according to Elyse Malnekoff, starts in the day time for stray cows. The scouted animals are captured at night, when there are few other people around to object. The rustlers, states Malnekoff, then load the animals into their vehicles and transport them. Sometimes the police pursue the rustlers and violence ensues, states Malnekoff. If I remove it she edit wars with a quickness that leaves me speechless.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * MSW, I've removed this source. Not much to argue about, here, actually; a thesis does not receive oversight, and as such cannot be considered reliable. What is the issue with Gilmartin? Yes, I know we can argue over which version should remain in place while the discussion happens, but I think we can all take a step back and see that it doesn't matter too much which version is in place for the couple of days that it will take. Fowler, Gilmartin appears to be a reliable source; so you are taking issue with the interpretation, I presume? Vanamonde (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind Vanamonde. Let us finish the contemporary events/modern section and us agree on not putting more stuff in the history section for now.  Most of the stuff there now, was added in helter-skelter fashion after I pointed out the source misinterpretation.  I fear more of that will happen and I'll fast lose whatever little desire I have left to edit this article.  Let me finish the table, and then we can debate the table.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with removing the thesis, given the objection. Most theses do receive varying degrees of advisor oversight, unlike student term papers, and many do get approved by a thesis committee before a university publishes/archives it. We need to ask if the sources in the closely related "cow vigilantism" article and others received scholarly review or any oversight either. I am concerned that we may inadvertently applying the RS standards differently for the different POVs in this and other closely related articles. Most newspaper articles and opinion columns do not receive oversight either. On Cattle theft in Arthasastra, again it is something for you to consider, and yes there is recent RS that mentions the same cattle theft such as Patrick Olivelle's King, Governance, and Law in Ancient India: Kautilya's Arthasastra, published by Oxford University Press, and others. The old article is an interesting read nevertheless, from multiple perspectives, if you find time. The cattle theft topic has been historically notable. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A journalistic piece in a newspaper does receive editorial oversight; we shouldn't really be using an OpEd unless we're looking at a commentator whose views are significant in their own right. Some theses may receive oversight, but not many; I've known many that received none at all. Without any detailed knowledge of the review that this one received, we cannot include it. If we have a recent article discussing historic cattle-theft, then that's what we should be using; but at this moment I think we need to hold until we get the contemporary material, and the table, sorted out. Vanamonde (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde: If a thesis is contested, I am fine with its removal. On news sources, let me share the following from admin Nyttend because it is well stated, "Journalists virtually never have scholarly training in history/anthropology/ethnography/etc. — they're generalists as far as this kind of thing goes, not knowing more than what's needed for background purposes, and as such we mustn't consider them reliable sources for such fields. (...) the most scholarly journalist will have his newspaper writeups reviewed by nobody except the newspaper's editors, whom again we can trust to know a lot about news reporting but we can't trust to know much of anything about "olds" reporting." In other words, good news sources do indeed have the editorial oversight, but we must ask what sort of oversight this is, and how different is this from the type of oversight some theses receive in universities? Further, we should avoid troublesome position based on personal analysis, such as [1] The data/analysis in one newspaper is not acceptable even if there was editorial oversight, and [2] The data/analysis in the other newspaper is acceptable because there was editorial oversight. We agree on OpEd and we agree on holding off history-related RS for now, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Merge two tables?
How about a compromise table version? Let us remove those columns in the big table above that Vanamonde and I had expressed concerns about, remove OR:Synthesis on the basis year, and merge the following into that table?

Comments welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Accepted forms of scientific visualization do not favor the merging of a five year table with yearly sampling with a 60-year table with sampling every 5-years, unless there is some overriding reason to telescope in on the last five years but not on the others. There is nothing in the title or scope of this article that suggests that. As a compromise, I'm happy to turn the first table into one with year of display occurring every three years, to begin it in 1955, and continue it on to 2015, if you want the last few years to be included.  Alternatively we could turn it into a 63-year table beginning in 1953 and put it in a figure in a compressed form, to be viewed upon clicking.  There are reliable projections for populations of both humans and livestock for each year since 1953. That is an easy fix.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would seem as though I am the one throwing a spanner in the works here, but I am not a fan of posting a bare number. It is misleading. All other useful statistics about a society are presented as a percentage or relative to some baseline: we should do the same, or not do it at all. presenting a table showing cattle theft increasing is as helpful as one showing total infant mortality increasing; ie, not at all. Vanamonde (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I had anticipated some of this and began to add some more stuff to User:Fowler&fowler/Table of cattle theft statistics 1953–2015.  See second section there.  "Cattle theft as proportion of cognizable crime"  will eventually replace the column "Volume of cognizable crime in India" which you had suggested was not that useful.  But the three columns: Volume of cattle theft per 100,000 human population", "... per 100,000 cattle population" and "Cattle theft as proportion of cognizable crime" are useful, as one can see if the variations in cattle theft are correlated to these other variables.  The 100,000, according to NCRB, is the internationally accepted number for crime statistics. There are many other details in the early statistics 1953 to 1965 (number of people arrested, number convicted, ....) but as I explained before sometime in the late 1960s cattle theft lost its status (in the statistics at least) as a flagship crime in Indian statistical records.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly prefer that. WP:COUNT would cover generating the entries in the table, unless we're pulling them from very different sources; which does seem to be the case, unless I'm reading something wrong...Vanamonde (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the cattle counts are from another source. The rest are from the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau), Crime in India reports.  The two cattle columns I will remove shortly.  The human population numbers are from the Census of India site, which the the NCRB acknowledges in each of its reports to be the source of its population data.  Both the NCRB and I are only using the gross population numbers for each of the seven decadal censuses they've had in independent India starting in 1951.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:54, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde: I also strongly prefer to include a baseline in any tables in this article and other closely related wikipedia articles such as the Cow vigilantism, but only if we can do so without OR. Please note that Roshen Kishore's Live Mint statement, "the share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014" being added to this article is merely 'number of incidents' POV, without a baseline. I am fine with adding property value in the table. I am also fine with two tables, if a single table is unacceptable for whatever reasons. The 2010-2015 data in the table above is notable and significant, one necessary for NPOV, because it clarifies / questions / presents a different side than the Roshen Kishore's statement. Kishore can be (mis)interpreted to be implying that cattle theft incidents have declined every year from 1990 through 2014/2015, but verifiable NCRB reports state that between 2010 and 2015 cattle theft incidents per year have been increasing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Theft incidents per year have increased in the period 2010 to 2015, but so has overall crime. The proportion of cattle theft to over Indian Penal Code cognizable crimes has not increased.  Also I now have the mid-year population data from NCRB, and will be adding a ten year magnified, year by year,  table 2005 to 2015, which will include the table you have made as the bottom five rows of its first column.  I'm happy to bag the Kishore stuff.  We can't use monetary (rupee) value as those have not been adjusted for inflation.  I'm using only the proportion recovered, which for cattle theft is the highest of any stolen property, a point that the Executive Summaries of the Crime in India reports never fail to make, it being the most notable thing about  a crime that in 2015 constituted 0.30% of all Indian Penal Code cognizable crimes, the same (0.30%) in 2014, 0.29% in 2013, and 0.30% in 2012. (the year before Gardiner Harris's report).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  05:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I am fine with "proportion recovered" column where the data is verifiable. Per Vanamonde's comment on July 25 in section above, I too oppose "column(s) about generic crime", or percentage of cognizable crimes as it is confusing and possibly misleading (others things are not constant, just like inflation). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * "Proportion relative to cognizable crime" is common practice. See: Table 1.4, 2013  It certainly was in the days when NCRB cared about Cattle Theft: See here.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Tables
,, , , , , , : I have the first cut of the tables of cattle theft statistics in post 1953-India ready below my subpage:User:Fowler&fowler/Table of cattle theft statistics 1953–2015. The subpage has There are two tables: A fifty-year five-yearly table 1953 to 2003, and a ten-year yearly table 2005 to 2015. (Please don't edit that page, but please leave comments here.) The statistics are based on nothing except the Crime in India yearly reports of NCRB], the details of which I'll give later. The two columns of interest in both tables are: (a) Volume (ie. a decimal number representing magnitude of cattle) of reported thefts per 100,000 human population (a standard of worldwide crime reporting) and (b) the proportion of cattle thefts to cognizable crimes (which in India are laid out in the Indian Penal Code, written with great inventiveness by the 34-year-old Thomas Babbington Macaulay in his usual limpid prose. ) What the tables tell me is that cattle theft was a crime of an agricultural society. Sometime in the early 70s the rates of the crime fell and eventually became so small that you'd have to make a pie chart at least the size of large pizza to find a place for it. Though there is some exaggerated newspaper buzz about cattle being lifted in unheard of numbers etc, you will see in the second chart, it really nothing, and what there is, is in keeping with a slight bump in crime itself. ( Most likely, India's Hindu nationalists, have gone and reported a few more cattle missing (just as they have reported in increased numbers that Sanskrit is their mother tongue, but forgot to tell their mothers to report the same), or the ever-present street cameras have recorded a few abductions giving them dramatic quality. But as you'll see, it It was really a crime of the past, when farmers in India counted cattle among their much valued investments.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't understand what you are asking of me? I can't interpret the figures anyway (nor can anyone else, I think). Are you proposing to move them into mainspace somewhere and let the reader draw their own conclusions? - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Don't know why you and RP got pinged.  I copied the names from another page, but don't remember you being there ...  Sorry, this was for people who were involved in discussions here.
 * I'm moving the tables here, even though the source column is not filled in yet.  Let me clarify the terms.  A cognizable crime in India is one in the face of which a police officer in India can arrest someone without a warrant.  It includes all the serious crimes.  It includes cattle theft.  In 1956, it included murder, kidnapping, dacoity, robbery, theft, and cattle theft among the main "crime heads."  (See here) It is common to describe a statistic, such as murder, in terms of its relative size, or proportion, to total cognizable crime.  See Table 1.4 here.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As for Sitush's question, which is an important one, I'm not planning to introduce the table itself to the article, but a graph based on the table. The visual display will be easily understood by everyone.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC) PS I've now added a graph below.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments

 * Charts showing the "number reported stolen" are certainly worth including. The rest is WP:SYNTHESIS unless there are RS using those kinds of factors. (Let us keep in mind that "reported stolen" and "stolen" may not have much relationship to each other, but the trends would be certainly related. Showing charts focused on the trend, which is a good idea.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be putting them in if they weren't commonly used. See here, page 192.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)  See Table 6.6.5  (Total crime there is total cognizable crime). And I've already mentioned  Crime in India, 2013, table 1.4. Perhaps I should use "major" or somesuch word instead and link it to "cognizable" with an asterisk.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)  PS per 100,000 is the international standard for crime rates, see here, page 12   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, good job. Perhaps you have a journal paper waiting to be written :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The graph is a job well done. I think any caption should mention that all data come from the same source; otherwise some folks are going to have the same first reaction I did, which was "where the heck did these numbers come from and do they mean anything". Vanamonde (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The chart is nice. It would be nicer if we can use two-Y axes, show total reported cattle thefts in these years with the right Y-axis. The labels should state that this is "reported" cattle theft and Source: NCRB India annual reports. The alternative approach would be to use two charts, the second chart showing the total reported cattle thefts per year. I also suggest we summarize in the text somewhere how reported cattle theft prevalence rates compared with other categories of major crimes in the NCRB reports, if we retain the "percentage of major crime". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks everyone for the compliments and for the suggestions. I believe I've accommodated all, except the sources, of course, which I will be adding in a rigorous manner by quoting page number, table number etc, so that anyone can examine them, and if errors have crept in, correct them as well.  There are three graphs below.  The first one displays cattle theft in proportion to major crime, considered as an aggregate, and the two others explain why the share of cattle theft in major crime is decreasing, as the first graph demonstrates.  It is not only because cattle theft is diminishing, but also because the others are increasing.  Together they tell the story of a crime in the Indian Penal Code, Act XlV 1860, and prosecuted under Sections 378:Of theft, section 403: Dishonest misappropriation of property, and 429: Mischief by killing an maiming cattle etc, once a major crime in a largely rural society.  There are many modern sources that speak to this.  As for comments, I don't see why "reported" needs to be used beyond an introductory use.  Most reliable sources do not use "reported thefts" when they talk about crime statistics.  It is understood that the theft is reported and that the police have found it prima facie credible to investigate and to eventually open a case.  See "In San Francisco, which takes the No. 3 spot on the list with 631.7 car thefts per 100,000 people, ...,  or even to cattle thefts: around 4,000 animals have gone missing so far this year, setting a pace that should easily top thefts in 2014. They're not saying "reported thefts in 2014."  As for two y axes, that is not commonly done in scientific visualization.  People will get confused.  Thanks again.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternate versions of charts without confusing content, and for guidelines consistency Re:Cow vigilante article
The first one is copied from F&f's effort above, other two modified.
 * i) Graph of cattle theft as proportion of major crime in India 1953-2015 (five-yearly 1953–2003; yearly 2005–2015)


 * ii) Graph of cattle theft as proportion of major crime in India 2005-2015


 * Graph of annual numbers of cattle theft 1953-2015 (five-yearly 1953–2003; yearly 2005–2015)

Discussion
Given the objections to cattle theft/background/etc-related content in the closely related Cow vigilantism article because it was not directly relevant to this article, we should not insert kidnapping etc data into this article. Per your earlier note, I propose "generic crime should be removed; they are unnecessarily complicating the picture". The sources are not stating that the the various crimes are related / linked. Please consider the above three charts instead of the new charts by F&f that includes kidnappings/etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with Cow vigilante? Cattle theft is an old crime in India.  It began to be prosecuted by the Raj in 1860, and the the East India Company in its dominions in India long before.  As for your graphs, showing raw numbers in the absence of comparison is not a good idea, as the visualization is dependent on the scale chosen.  The same data can look like it is changing a lot, or not changing at all, depending on how you scale the axes.  And there is no a priori standard for choosing the scaling.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that we shouldn't present specific other crimes as comparison. Showing cattle-theft as a proportion of major crime does seem reasonable, but I am not hung up on it. Whatever data we present, we should be showing from as far back as we have reasonable data from the same source, though; and as above, I think it should be presented indexed to population (ie per X humans). Vanamonde (talk) 16:50, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless you show somewhere what the categories of major crime are, and how they are changing, the first graph has little meaning. If you tell someone that dacoities constitute a smaller share of major crime in India today, they will ask, "What has taken its place?" or if you say the share of bicycle theft in aggregate theft has diminished considerably, they will ask, "what are the main categories of theft?" Variation in a crime, relative to other crime, or to spatial location are are relevant.  You might not be hung up on it, but it is the standard way of presenting crime in all 62 reports of Crime in India.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:07, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just realized, that I became invested in the Crime in India reports and in the crime of cattle theft, not because I was trying to build an encyclopedia, but because I was trying to ferret out the history of the crime in the data. My interest no doubt had been piqued by my presence in India. As has often happened, what I find interesting is not of interest to others, and ultimately not in the best interest of presenting encyclopedic content.  So, if you don't mind, I'd like to bow out. I enjoyed working on the data, and reading many elegant passages of the Indian Penal Code  along the way.  I wish you all the best.  My graphs, of course, are yours for the using, if you so choose.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is the standard method, then that is probably what we should use; and so cattle theft per 100,000 humans, and proportion of cattle theft, are what I would like to see in the graph we actually use. Fowler has kindly supplied said graph. MSW, do you have any further objections? Vanamonde (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

F&f: Remember "narrow focus" arguments in that article's talk page! We can't apply different standards in closely related articles, as it misleads and creates POV issues. Vanamonde: I am fine with showing cattle theft as a proportion of major crime and I am fine with indexing the data to population even if the source explicitly doesn't do so, per WP:CALC. However, this is not an "either-or" case. Absolute numbers are a standard way of reporting, they are useful and important. A indexed number does not readily communicate if the total number of cattle thefts are 8 per year, or 8,000 per year, or 8,000,000 per year. There is no reason to not include the chart with total numbers above along with the proportion + indexing charts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Collapsed table of volume of cattle theft per 100,000 people
,,, In this section and one below please find tables with links for (i) incidence of cattle theft (i.e. annual numbers of cattle reported stolen) (ii) mid-year estimate of human population in India in units of lakhs = 100,000 people (when available) (iii) the rate/volume of reported cattle theft per 100,000 people, (iv) percentage of cattle theft in major crime. For the year 1953 to 1969 the NCRB reports themselves compute the values for (iii); thereafter, they give mid-year population estimates which they use to compute rate/volume of crime for major crime heads. We use these estimates to compute the rate/volume of cattle theft per 100,000 humans. Since the population is already in units of 100,000, the rate/volume is computed by simple division of (i) by (ii). Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS Please note: page numbers refer to those in the original documents as found printed, usually, at the bottom of the displayed pages. These are not the page numbers as they might appear at the top of your pdf browser. Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)  Updated.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Finish up
Hi there, I have received a number of emails in the last few days suggesting that I should not have left the article in the lurch by bowing out abruptly. In this regard, I wanted to assure you that my leaving was no reflection of any displeasure at you. On the contrary, I believe you have been carrying out your job of mediation (which you have, in effect, been, saddled with) with exceptional patience and judiciousness. I will therefore complete three things I had addressed here: (a) the graphs, (b) David Gilmartin's article and related literature on cattle raiding and theft among pastoral communities in the British Raj, and (c) references (such as Roshan Kishore's in "How India Steals" in Live Mint, suggesting decline of the share of cattle theft in aggregate theft in India during the period 1990 to 2014.  Sarah Welch has been making claims and offering analogies that  I propose to counter.  Speaking of claims, I find that her claim, "I am fine with indexing the data to population even if the source explicitly doesn't do so, per WP:CALC," does not jibe with a short table with rigorous references, all to the National Crime Records Bureau of India (NCRB).  In fact, as I've already stated, with examples, it is the internationally accepted standard of crime reporting. If you want a direct quote by the NCRB of the internationally accepted standard, I can give that to you as well. Here is the short table:

As for the graphs, I propose that we accept three graphs (i) Cattle theft per 100,000 people, (ii) Cattle theft as proportion of aggregate major crime, and (iii) raw numbers of cattle theft for the period 1953 to 2015. I propose further that all years be included from 1953 to 2015, and that the scaling of the x- and y axes be equal, so that any geometric variation observed in the graph represents rates of change of quantities that have the same range. I have already drawn the graph for the raw numbers from 1953 to 2015, with equal scaling, which I present below. I will do the same for the other two graphs, soon and post them here. I will also create a table with precise references that we can put in a sub-page of the page for handy reference. I will then present a summary of Gilmartin's work as it related to cow theft and finally in a few days get around to Kishore. Here are the raw numbers (this is a preliminary graph, which I have not checked rigorously yet for careless errors.):

Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  09:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for returning, Fowler. Just for the record, I was not mad at you :). Yes, those are the major points of contention, and working through them would be helpful. I am still somewhat opposed to this graph we have here. In addition to the reasons I mention above, I think that we should not be displaying more than a single figure containing a graph, else we risk overwhelming the reader. The "Cattle theft indexed to population" and "cattle theft as a proportion of crime" would be my first choices, and they can be displayed on a single figure. That said, if you and MSW agree on including this, then I will not object further. I agree that any graph we present should include data for as many years as we are able to present. Vanamonde (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not crazy about the graph of raw numbers either mainly because of the xy scaling in the display. Let me think this over some more.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Vanamonde: We should include new green chart F&f has prepared, not only for reasons explained above and because raw numbers are verifiable in the same RS, but because I have yet to see any appropriate reason why it shouldn't be. It also helps bring NPOV to the Kishore claim in Live Mint repeatedly mentioned by F&f in sections above, "The share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014". F&f's links above such as this, suggest that the cattle theft per 100,000 populations has varied quite a bit across their states. How about we show the regional variation in cattle theft per 100,000 population too? say just for 2015? or may be 1953, 1983 and 2013 (or some appropriate better selection)? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah Welch has misinterpreted data journalist Roshan Kishore. Kishore is talking about the share, i.e. proportion, of cattle theft in aggregate theft both in numbers and in value of property taken.  This raw numbers graphs speaks to nothing of that.  You'd have to divide the raw numbers by aggregate theft for each year and take percentages in order to get Kishore's graph.  I have already done that.  What he says is more or less correct.  There are two outliers which he as a statistician can discount and we can't.  But what he is saying is true.  What he is suggesting is that it is not just aggregate crime, but also aggregate theft relative to which cattle theft is declining. I would have included the proportion of aggregate theft data long ago, but for the outliers.  As for regional data, sorry, we can't keep changing the topics of the arguments all the time.  I'm offering the raw numbers graph.  It doesn't prove anything.  Take it or leave it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS We can certainly mention in the text that the large states, with large cattle and buffalo herds, have traditionally reported higher cattle theft numbers. The introductory "Survey of Crime" chapters usually say something to that effect every year.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I quoted F&f last sentence from this edit diff. There is no need for interpretation, it was just an exact quote from the Live Mint article, which does state "The share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014." It does not matter if the newspaper is analyzing/plotting the data in number of different ways and for many different crimes. The absolute/raw theft numbers are verifiable in the NCRB tables, from which all F&f charts above are derived. On rest... there is no changing the topics here! I am suggesting that we add a fourth chart or a table that shows regional variation in cattle theft, not changing the three charts. I like the discussion idea. We can also include a subsection that discusses the regional variation aspect of cattle theft. If in a particular state the number was two or three times higher or lower than national average per RS, then this is notable and worth including in the article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:08, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake in interpreting him the first time. He is saying something else, as I realized soon thereafter.  His statement is about proportion of cattle theft to aggregate theft.  Examine the accompanying diagram the live mint article.  How does he get the number 1.4 for cattle theft for 2014?  Here are the sequence: years = 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012,2013,2014,2015; and percentages =  ,, , , ,,, , , , , ,, , , , , . Do you see the percentage for 2014?  If is 1.37 rounded to 1.4 in Kishore.  Here is the graph:

You don't seem to understand what is going on, and yet you go on arguing ... Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And here is what he did say, "In 1990, cycles had the biggest share in the number of incidents classified by nature of property stolen. Cycles have made way for motorcycles and scooters now. In terms of value of property stolen, motor cars and other vehicles (except two-wheelers) have the largest share. The share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014."  What is he talking about?  He is talking about share in the total number of incidents classified by nature of property.  What does that page look like for 2014?  It looks like this.  What is the cattle theft reported?  It is 8474 8815 .  What is the total property theft?  It is 618403.  What happens when you compute 8474/618403 times 100 (for per cent)?  You get 1.37, which Kishore rounds to 1.4 in the box diagram immediately below the quote.  It is possible I might have made some careless mistakes, but no statistician would dispute the statement that the share of cattle theft in aggregate theft has decline, not just for 1990 to 2014, but for all 63 years beginning in 1953.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * F&f: You are back to your FORUM-y TEXTWALLs and lecturing. Not helpful. Yes, I saw the box diagram. But, this is an article on "cattle theft in India", not on Roshan Kishore, nor "Data journalism in Live Mint", nor "F&f analysis on OpEd/data journalism of Roshan Kishore". No need for personal analysis/OR and lectures on "what is going on in Live Mint" article, on this talk page. No need for these silly nonsensical snide remarks such as "you don't seem to understand what is going on, and yet you go on arguing". There is a need to focus on this article's subject and how to reach a compromise. If you insist, we can also include an exact quote from Live Mint in this article, as a compromise. What else, and why? The absolute/raw cattle theft numbers are from NCRB, which you, I and Vanamonde accept as WP:RS. Time to accept it, finalize this and refocus on this article. Else try DRN. Good luck, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The raw numbers graph was Sarah Welch 's idea, not mine.  I did the hard work for it, locating the pages for all 62 years.  She claimed that it disproved something in Roshan Kishore.  It did nothing of that sort.  I did the hard work for that actually computing the share of cattle theft in all property theft, and even drew a graph above.  She obviously made a big booboo. Then she was talking about, ""I am fine with indexing the data to population even if the source explicitly doesn't do so, per WP:CALC,"  I showed that it is very much the source.   Now she wants to add a fourth graph or table.  ( Everything I do, is FORUMY-y or TEXTWALL, every thing she does has the blessing of admin X, Y, or Z, the prolix cogitations of one of whom on journalists' lack of qualifications in ethnography etc she periodically unloads on everyone, as she has on both you and me, but those are not FORUM-y nor TEXTWALL. )  Please help.  I give up.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Vanamonde: Here is the 2015 NCRB crime stats report. I was and am unable to find cattle theft per 100,000 people in this 2015 report, can you? Yes, the 1950s reports did include the per 100,000 people indexed number as F&f mentions above, but it seems the reporting format changed over the years (or I am just missing it in the 2015 and other recent reports). It is this that motivated the remark, "I am fine with indexing the data to population even if the source explicitly doesn't do so, per WP:CALC". Perhaps you can check the 2015 report, and tell me which page number reports the cattle theft per 100,000 people data. Back to this article... for compromise, I am fine with also including a sentence about "Cattle theft as percentage of total theft" based on Kishore. But that makes including the raw numbers even more important, since the raw numbers vary year to year, and "total thefts" in NCRB tables are not constant from year to year. It is not NPOV to conclude or imply a decreasing absolute trend from relative numbers, just because 10/100 in year 1 is larger than 90/2000 in year 6. Silence on absolute numbers is inappropriate. Both "rate or relative" and "total or raw numbers" are standard way of reporting crime stats (see the Tables 3, 4, Appendix-Table 3 etc here for example). Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The point of showing the reports from 1953 to 1957 was that by explicitly giving the rate the cattle theft per 100,000 people, they were demonstrating that that statistic is notable, and acceptable for us to display. All the other reports (post-1957) have "mid-year population estimates."  The 2015 report has these estimates.  In order to compute, we use WP:CALC which says, Basic arithmetic is allowed.  What operations are allowed?  According to the Basic arithmetic page, addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, including decimal fractions.  I have used nothing except these elementary operations on data that is all in that report, the half-year population estimate already alluded to and the cattle theft data, here.  How do I compute the rate per 100,000.  I compute:  which is  the arithmetic operation: 88115x100000/1259100000 up to 2 decimal places, i.e..  If raw numbers need to be displayed for this, so do the mid-year population estimates.  Those are both in the table, and that table, as I've already stated will be available on a subpage of the article's talk page.  There anyone can read the raw numbers, the population estimates, ... and all the other statistics, as well as the page numbers on the reports.  Why, Sarah Welch, are you wasting my time now?  That table has been around for many days.  The first two graphs were based on that table.  [User:Fowler%26fowler/Table_of_cattle_theft_statistics_1953–2015 Here it is].  My first two graphs were based on it.  You said they were "nice."  The objections you posted then had nothing to do with WP:CALC.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I am now in agreement with Vanamonde that we not post the raw numbers data.  I gave Sarah Welch a chance.  She chose to waste the opportunity.  It is clear she does not understand the data.  People can be disruptive to the very principles of Wikipedia, while they are also being polite and quoting WP:THIS and THAT, not to mention admin THIS or THAT.  Then there are people like me who are blunt, but are true to the spirit of Wikipedia.  I did all the hard work.  I gave Sarah Welch a chance.  She chose not to take it.  So, as of now, I am accepting only two charts, of crime per 100,000 and of crime as proportion of aggregate major crime.  I'm tired. Good night.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Revised proposal
,,  Last night, because of tiredness and an edit conflict, I did not see that Sarah Welch had accepted including a sentence from Roshan Kishore on the percentage of cattle theft in overall theft in India. My apologies. I am proposing that we begin with the baselined graphs (i.e. cattle theft per 100,000; cattle theft as percentage of overall crime, etc) and with Roshan Kishore's sentence (as it addresses baselined statistics, all from NCRB, for all of India over a relatively long period of time (15 years), and then move to the raw numbers graph and to Gardiner Harris's observation, which is not baselined, is only about New Delhi and it bordering villages, and about the year or two preceding 2013, and says nothing about NCRB.  Here are the two visualizations.  I've added the graph of cattle theft as proportion of overall theft to the first set of graphs (those are only available from 1968 onward or thereabouts, but add supporting information that the share of cattle theft in overall  crime and overall theft has been generally declining). We don't have to keep that graph; alternatively we could swap it with the overall crime graph. But we cannot begin with the raw numbers graph. Here then are the graphs:

Text about Roshan Kishore's observations goes here.

Text about Gardiner Harris's observations goes here.

This I believe is fair, and will be agreeable to everyone. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the rest of you folks are okay with this, I will go along with it. I would prefer that the second graph be omitted, simply because of a gut feeling that our average reader could not care less about graphs, and so the fewer the better; but I am willing to set aside that objection. Vanamonde (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not crazy about the second graph either, as you probably already know, but, given the history of that graph with its beginnings in a table of five monotonically increasing numbers that are supposed to presage something for some people, given the extent to which ad hoc arguments have been advanced to retain some version of those five numbers, given how tired I am of such arguments and objections, I see its inclusion as a necessary evil. At least the full graph shows that the five numbers constitute nothing but a cusp at the end of a mighty fall.  The few among our readers that do care about graphs will immediately see that.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I accept the above two graphs as the compromise version, for reasons above. F&f: I appreciate you re-reading what I wrote. Vanamonde: For the reader, an appropriate discussion should go with these two graphs. Perhaps you can read the discussion/sources above and word something up? We shouldn't incorrectly declare or imply in wikipedia voice that raw cattle theft numbers have dropped between 2010 and 2015. I am fine with explaining that cattle theft numbers have increased in this period but total thefts there have increased more or their population has also increased or etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We cannot explain any causation in these graphs. The reader has to  make up their own minds.  The figure captions will simply say graph of .....   To explain causation is to editorialize.  If the cattle theft per 100,000 has halved it doesn't matter if the population has doubled or the raw numbers of cattle theft have halved, the rate has dropped, that is all that concerns us.  Neither of those two scenarios offers a less crime-ridden scenario, and we certainly cannot imply  that by mentioning raw numbers.  That indeed would not only be OR, but also be POV pushing.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delighted to read that. Lets do that consistently. Quote exact. No explaining Kishore, no explaining NCRB-based charts. I am fine with stating something like, "According to a report in Live Mint by Kishore, "the share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014".[citeLM] According to NCRB crime statistics in India reports, between 2010 and 2015, cattle thefts rose from X1 to X2, total thefts rose from Y1 to Y2, major crimes rose from Z1 to Z2."[citeNCRB] Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah Welch, We are encouraged to paraphrase text in a source, to paraphrase faithfully what the text says. We are not allowed to explain graphs more than what the graph labels represent.  We cannot explain why a graph is downward sloping to the right, why an interpolated graph has a point of inflection in the year XXXX, why there are singularities in that graph for some years and not for others, unless there is an independent source that states this.   Kishore is a text.  Its proper paraphrase is, "According to Roshan Kishore, the percentage of cattle theft in aggregate theft has declined in the period 1990–2014."  The raw data graph is a graph.  Unless someone has spoken to that graph, based on NCRB data, to show certain trends (as indeed Kishore has done for his), we cannot independently add anything.  As for NCRB yearly reports, there are 62 of them.  They each address how the different statistics have changed during that year.  Why should we single out the years between 2010 and 2015? Surely, you don't expect us to summarize each year since 1953.  If we do, we will necessarily be adding much more from the early years, when cattle theft was very much a major crime  in India.   Very best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

How about the following compromise version,
 * "According to a report in Live Mint by Kishore, the percentage of cattle theft in aggregate theft has declined in the period 1990–2014. Kishore states, "the share of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990–2014".[citeLM] According to NCRB crime statistics in India reports, between 2010 and 2015, reported cattle thefts rose from X1 to X2, total thefts rose from Y1 to Y2, major crimes rose from Z1 to Z2."[citeNCRB]

This 2010-2015 note verifiable in the NCRB reports improves NPOV. Vanamonde: please see Kishore article. F&f is explaining Kishore's graph. If it is okay to paraphrase / state the data in Kishore graph/article, lets be consistent and paraphrase / state the NCRB data too for NPOV. Let us avoid inadvertently implying and misleading the reader that raw 'cattle theft incidents have fallen" every year through 2014. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Live Mint article by Roshan Kishore was published on October 24, 2015. There was only once NCRB report published after that article.  It is the report Crime in India 2015 which was published on 29th July 2016.  It makes only two reference to cattle theft.  The first one is on page 121 and states: "During 2015, maximum recoveries of properties, in term of cases, were reported under cattle theft (47.0%) whereas lowest recoveries were made under motor vehicles (20.8%)."  The second reference is Table 8.4, which merely lists the number of cattle theft cases for the year 2015 to be 8815, saying nowhere that these numbers, let alone the rate per 100,000 has increased or decreased.  In the 2014 report, the only references to "cattle" are on page 118, which states, "During 2014, maximum recoveries of properties, in term of cases, were reported under cattle (46.3%) whereas lowest recoveries were made under motor vehicles (21.4%)." and in Table 8.4, which lists the number of cases to be 8474.  It the same with each year between 2010 and 2014.  There is no statement anywhere that I can find about the cattle theft numbers or rates increasing or decreasing.  To state that in text by citing the tables for the individual year would be synthesis.  Very best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS If there is consensus to briefly summarize in words the numerical data in these graphs, say, for visually handicapped readers, the summary will necessarily be one of the period 1953 to 2015. There is no reason why it would privilege the years between 2010 and 2015, whose data constitutes a small proportion of the entire data set being visualized.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:48, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not within our remit to summarize raw data, I'm afraid. We can provide the raw data, but even that is okay only because secondary sources have commented on the raw data. In addition to the raw data, we need to provide commentary from the secondary sources, duly weighted; but we should still paraphrase, rather than quote, these sources. Vanamonde (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will accept your call on the choice of wording and approach here, in the interest of compromise and moving forward. In my view, paraphrasing is better, but requires that we do not change the meaning. Sometimes the dispute is about the latter part, then exact quote with in-text attribution is an option to consider. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

OR in cattle theft per 100,000 people data?
F&f: what population data did you use for those years where the NCRB report did not publish cattle theft per 100,000 people? There seems to be inconsistencies / OR-by-you / something-I-may-be-missing. For example, in your latest chart above with three lines, you seem to calculating 1953 data for 'cattle theft per 100,000 humans' as 26859*100000/389690000 (=6.89), but the report explicitly states that number to be 7.4 cattle theft incidence rate per 1,00,000 population on page 17. I see verifiability issues in annual NCRB reports for your data for some years and with your population data for some years. Similarly, please also identify the source of the cattle theft per 100,000 people data for recent years. A table of population data you used to make your chart, with source, will be helpful. shouldn't we avoid OR in charts?, avoid synthesis or interpolating data personally from multiple sources or publishing novel results by combining sources not found in any source?, or ignore the data the source is stating and replace it with data calculated through OR? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarah Welch, Please read the first post I made in the Finish Up section.
 * It says clearly, "As for the graphs, I propose that we accept three graphs (i) Cattle theft per 100,000 people, (ii) Cattle theft as proportion of aggregate major crime, and (iii) raw numbers of cattle theft for the period 1953 to 2015. I propose further that all years be included from 1953 to 2015, and that the scaling of the x- and y axes be equal, so that any geometric variation observed in the graph represents rates of change of quantities that have the same range.  I have already drawn the graph for the raw numbers from 1953 to 2015, with equal scaling, which I present below.  I will do the same for the other two graphs, soon and post them here.  I will also create a table with precise references that we can put in a sub-page of the page for handy reference.  I will then present a summary of Gilmartin's work as it related to cow theft and finally in a few days get around to Kishore.  Here are the raw numbers (this is a preliminary graph, which I have not checked rigorously yet for careless errors.)"


 * When I'm done, you can nickel and dime it all you want. But please don't when I'm in the middle, especially when you are not seeing that the rough and ready graphs I added in the revised proposals are not those of the complete data, but were done for the purpose of showing the prototype.  Indeed as you will notice, the first graph is the same as the one I had presented a week ago. There is a good reason why I have proposed to give the precise page numbers of the source.  This  is quite different from what you had suggested in your response to the first graph: "The chart is nice. It would be nicer if we can use two-Y axes, show total reported cattle thefts in these years with the right Y-axis. The labels should state that this is "reported" cattle theft and Source: NCRB India annual reports."  Were I to identify my source as generally as you had suggested, I'd be leaving myself open to an avalanche of accusations of original research, not least by you.  I will now not be responding to further posts of this sort until I am done.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:51, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In other words, your latest "prototype" has some OR / rough-incorrect data. We await the population data source, and the final corrected version that removes all OR and OR:Synthesis. Vanamonde: let us hold off adding these charts till we get the corrected charts and sources to verify the population data for per 100,000 people calc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first complete data set and graph I will present here will be the rate per 100,000. Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Graph 1: rate of cattle theft and percentage of cattle theft in major crime
The following sentence will follow Graph 1: According to Roshan Kishore, writing in Live Mint, analysis of data published by India's National Crime Records Bureau shows that the proportion of cattle theft in overall theft in India declined during the period 1990–2014 both in the number of incidents reported and the value of the property taken.

Graph 2: Graph of raw numbers of annual cattle theft in India, 1953–2015
These sentences will follow the "raw numbers" graph. (See this earlier discussion for The Hindu cited discussion.):

A 2013 report by Gardiner Harris's in the Delhi Journal of The New York Times stated that cattle theft had increased in recent times in New Delhi, linked to an increase in the consumption of meat among Indians. The meat was primarily chicken, but included beef. Harris argued that cattle were left free to roam the streets, making them easy targets. According to The Hindu newspaper, analysis of data published by India's National Sample Survey 2016 shows that less than one per cent of Hindus in the Hindi belt consume beef or buffalo meat. Over the ten year period, 1999-2000 to 2011-2012, the consumption of beef or buffalo meat by Hindus in India declined from 19 million to 12.5 million.

Comments
I'm done now. Please add your comments below. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  09:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The charts look better than previous effort, per a quick glance. Will complete verification checks in a day or two. I oppose some of the proposed "sentences to follow" the charts, because the content needs to focus on 'cattle theft' and the charts. I urge we include a short statement about the charts for the visually challenged readers. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You should have thought of the need to focus on cattle theft before you let Mr Harris have a field day with old stories about Hindus ordering steak in Delhi in his Delhi journal of the NY Times (where "journal," incidentally, is meant in the sense of "diary" or a "commonplace book.") At least Barry Bearak writing in the same Delhi journal of the NY Times in 1998 told them with some humor, "'Cow slaughter -- sometimes a volatile, violence-provoking issue here -- is banned in most of India's 27 states, though there is no shortage of juicy steaks for those who can afford them. Beef is sold on the black market, and butchers casually deliver their prime cuts door to door. ... For the cow catcher, the animal's high approval rating is a problem. As a crowd gathers, more people are always rooting for the cow than the catcher. There is little use in talking to spectators about plastic bags and clogged digestive tracts.'"  That was published in the same Delhi journal of NY Times at a time when the much vaunted graph of raw cattle theft numbers was plummeting down at a near vertical and, according to The Hindu report, 6.5 million more Hindus were eating beef.  (Please scroll upstairs and reexamine the graph at the year 1998.)  In other words, what is the connection between Hindus eating beef and cattle theft?  There is little or none.  Why are we letting a NY Times reporter writing in 2013 get away with telling us nonsense, but holding much higher standards for people who are offering the inconvenient proof of the nonsense,  telling them, "No, no, you need to talk only about cattle theft?"   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * A few spot checks verify. F&f: You need to quit your "you should have thought" etc lecturing, and your FORUM-y/OR gossips about "what is the connection between..." because it not helpful and comes across as one-sided POV pushing. As Vanamonde stated above, we need to stick to summarizing sources, without changing the meaning, whether we personally agree with it or not. Allow me to ignore your editorializing. I suggest we place the two graphs using the vertical multiple images template, and the following text below the two:
 * According to Roshan Kishore, writing in Live Mint, the proportion of cattle stolen has fallen both in terms of the number of incidents and the value of property during 1990-2014.
 * We should have no irrelevant or OR:Synthesis text as caption for these images. A few sentences from The New York Times article on cattle theft, illegal slaughterhouses, meat demand etc should go in another section of this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the connection between Mr Kishore's statement (about the share of cattle theft in aggregate theft) and the second figure containing the graph of raw numbers. The latter was added because it appeared to be your non-negotiable demand, not because it had any connection with Mr Kishore, whose sentence properly belongs after the first figure.  Please note that we agreed on three sentences for Mr Harris which Vanamonde kindly added to the article:  in this edit whose edit summary noted the previous talk page discussion.  Please also note that Vanamonde has already stated: "I am not particularly keen on using Harris for a numerical figure at any point; likewise, I would be okay with not using him any more at all."  That has my support, which in turn suggests that there is little appetite for adding more from Harris's article.  What he already has, says nothing about illegal abattoirs, mainly only that cattle theft has increased in recent times, the increase linked to more meat consumption among Indians.  Therefore, in my view, there is no better location to place Mr Harris than immediately after the graph of cattle theft raw numbers which shows their variation over time and immediately before the reports from The Hindu that give the information about meat eating among Indians taken from India's latest National Sample Survey.  That too seems to have the assent of Vanamonde and of my own.  There is no other section, and to my knowledge, no consensus yet on adding one.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

There are many nuances in Vanamonde's comment you link. Vanamonde states "That isn't quite the case here"; concurs that including something from The New York Times article is consistent with our policy. Further, while you seem to disagree, Vanamonde and I agree on the closing suggestion, "Nonetheless, I'd point out that often the best approach to incorrect sources is to use them, and also to present other sources describing a more accurate view." I, therefore, ignore your personal analysis of Harris and The New York Times article, and suggestions based on your claims in sections above such as "I am in Delhi and I asked the local police". As I have explained before, we can't accept The New York Times for a particular POV in closely related articles, and reject the same source for a different POV based on personal OR. I welcome presenting a summary from other published sources instead. For example, according to published NCRB reports, "the total number of cattle theft was 6,272 in 2011, and it increased to 8,815 in 2015.[34][35]" The total number of a specific crime and crime per 100,000 people basis is the standard way of reporting crime stats. I acknowledge your concern about Kishore's statement. Perhaps we should include a statement based on Kishore as the caption for the first chart; for the second, let us consider something based on NCRB reports as a compromise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We cannot interpret raw numbers. Period.  There is no secondary source that attests to the NCRB numbers increasing.  As for  Vanamonde, he says "As to Harris; my suggestion above was based on presenting his most basic observations, without the details he is using to dramatize the story and which are, as you point out, frequently incorrect. I am not particularly keen on using Harris for a numerical figure at any point; likewise, I would be okay with not using him any more at all. Nonetheless, I'd point out that often the best approach to incorrect sources is to use them, and also to present other sources describing a more accurate view." We are presenting Harris, whose dramatic effects as Vanamonde points out "are frequently incorrect," in the bit that is already in, and presenting The Hindu "describing a more accurate viewpoint." about which Vanamonde is on record stating, "These analyses, though, need to be in the article."  That seems to be pretty clear.  Sarah Welch, are you deliberately stalling, and WP:GAMING the system?  If so, please be aware that it is a form of disruption.   please weigh in here.  I'm at my wits end.  I have created two long tables with 62 links each; I have created three graphs.  I have never in my eleven years on Wikipedia encountered an editor who refuses to move forward, all the time creating newer objections and interpretations.  If it is not that a senior thesis is reliable, it is a unilateral interpretation of raw numbers.  Something needs to be done.  Please help.  I sincerely request this.  I am absolutely at my wits end.  I know that you're involved at FAC, but I need help here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:44, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am honestly unable to understand the source of further conflict. We have three graphs about which we have reached a certain level of agreement. MSW, we cannot interpret raw numbers. We can describe what they are graphs of, is all. The material we have reached consensus on should probably be added at this point. If we want to add further information from current or new sources, we probably need to start a separate discussion. Vanamonde (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't understand it either. What is it specifically that seems like "I am interpreting raw numbers"? Stating source or exact stating of data for readers who are visually impaired and can't see the chart is not interpretation! In my last comment, I had in mind something like "Above chart shows total reported cattle theft every year based on India's NCRB crime statistics reports from 1953-2015", and I frankly don't see any interpretations there. Help me understand. What we can't do is insert "chicken eating" etc OR:Synthesis into the caption suggested by F&f above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was I, Fowler&fowler, who offered to Vanamonde that we perhaps could describe the graphs in general terms if something was needed for visually impaired readers. It was my suggestion.  To it, Vanamonde clarified that we cannot interpret data.  Again let me repeat: we cannot interpret data.  We can only state that the graph shows the variation of annual cattle theft numbers represented along the Y-axis during the period 1953 to 2015, with time represented in discrete units of a year on the X-axis.  If the visually impaired readers want more information, they can read the tables I have made, using the same device they use to read Wikipedia.  There is no quantitative information in the graph that is not in the table.  If you think there is, please enlighten me.  The chicken eating was not my synthesis.  It was the edit Vanamonde kindlly made in the article after much discussion.  It is already in the article, has been for quite some time.  Does that clear your confusion?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * PS Since Sarah Welch is no longer asking for a sentence of the type, "according to published NCRB reports, 'the total number of cattle theft was 6,272 in 2011, and it increased to 8,815 in 2015.[34][35]'," in which data is in fact being selectively interpreted, and since she says she had in mind something like, "The above chart shows total reported cattle theft every year based on India's NCRB crime statistics reports from 1953 until 2015," I have inferred that there is no longer any conflict, and per Vanamonde's remark, "The material we have reached consensus on should probably be added at this point." I am now adding the two figures along with the text about Kishore and The Hindu reports to the three sentences from Harris that are already in the article. Thank you everyone.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)