Talk:Manual scavenging

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sanitation High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SanitationWikipedia:WikiProject SanitationTemplate:WikiProject Sanitationsanitation articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. India Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in July 2016.

I tend to disagree with the claim that the British introduced manual scavenging to India. It seems to be debatable who exactly introduced it; but many people I talked to in India while working on a sanitation project seemed to think that it started with the spread of Islam-- Since it was considered indecent for women to defecate in the open, they developed dry latrines for indoors. And the poorer, "lower" people on the social hierarchy were the ones expected to clean the latrines (which, in many areas, were the scheduled castes).

I also tend to believe that manual scavenging pre-dates the British because I personally saw dry latrines inside an ancient palace in Orccha. It's possible that the palace's princes met some early British colonialists and got inspired to build toilets from them, but that seems unlikely.

So I think this debate should be brought up in the article.

Fionb (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC) I also tend to disagree. British never introduced such things. Mosesben (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck comment by sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart. Dougweller (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know when and how the practice was introduced. But I would prefer to refrain from relating it to spread of Islam for political reasons.Sparsh85 (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Manual Scavenging in India: A Disgrace to the Country page 20-21, here, here, here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was here to edit the unsourced edits, months ago. But after reading about the violation, I am really surprised. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you satisfied with this Lalanjeelalan (talk) 14:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page has improved a lot today - please also refer to the discussion here. I think it is important that we don't just blindly use the term "dry latrine" which we had defined nowhere in all the other toilet pages we already have on Wikipedia but explain to the readers what is meant in the Indian government language with "dry latrine". It is not the same as what is defined as dry toilet on Wikipedia... EvM-Susana (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree - the poor systems described on this page should not be considered refer to all dry toilets. On the general point, this page still needs a lot of work to get it into a useful state. JMWt (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add to the confusion, the Supreme Court itself refers to "Dry Latrines" in the 2014 judgement.JMWt (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly that issue with the railway tracks is confusing me: Firstly, at least some Indian trains also have flush toilets where the excreta stays on the train and dodn't drop on the railway lines (see here). Secondly, excreta dropping on railway tracks is not a problem in sparsely populated rural areas. I still remember having such train toilets even here in Germany in the 1980s. It wasn't regarded as a major problem (mind you, nowadays the trains use vacuum toilets and the liquid stays on the trains)... So I assume the cleaning of railway tracks only takes place in urban areas? This should still be clarified in the article. EvM-Susana (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am catching up, but it appears that there is a particular issue with the Indian railways because a) they employed a lot of manual scavengers and b)there was a Supreme Court case specifically about conditions on the railway. The Indian Railways tried to argue that this was not manual scavenging and that they were upgrading the facilities on the trains. This seems to be a good source on this story, there probably are other sources which are worth reading specifically on this point. JMWt (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I agree with this new wording in the lead: "Manual scavenging is a term used in Indian English" - Do you really want to call this "Indian English"? I suspect that the term "manual scavenging" might also be used in countries other than India, isn't it? In any case, I think I preferred the wording how we had it before. EvMsmile (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before I began to get my hands dirty (!!) in digging into this article, the first sentence read:

Manual scavenging is a term used in India which refers to the removal of raw (fresh and untreated) human excreta from buckets or other containers that are used as toilets or from the pits of pit latrines.

and I changed it to:

Manual scavenging is a term used in Indian English for the removal of untreated human excreta from bucket toilets or pit latrines.

My intention was to link to the existence of a major variety of English, because many native speakers think their own knowledge of the language is all there is to it, and other forms are wrong. Indian English has about as many fluent speakers as British English, and about as many users as American English. Certainly, if "manual scavenging" is the term used in other countries, that should be recorded. In fact, whatever other terms are used should be noted in this article. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the term "Indian English" seems strange to me in this context. I assume the term "manual scavenging" is also used in neighboring countries, e.g. Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan? Perhaps a Google search would reveal more. But OK, it can also stay like this. EvMsmile (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. When other information becomes available, it can be added. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like most of the changes here (and I've thought of more), but I'm not sure why this was removed:

A flush toilet connected to a septic tank or sewer system does not require manual emptying. However, when a flush toilet is connected to a pit, then pit emptying might still involve manual labor in some countries and circumstances. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this information (which I think I might have added myself earlier), as I felt it was deviating too far from the topic of manual scavenging. The information can be found on the pages for pit latrine and septic tank. Note I am working with another editor on a new article about fecal sludge management. Once we have that, it will pull lots of information together. Sneek preview is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmrobbins10/sandbox EvMsmile (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is exactly the sort of information I love in articles - brief, and pointing elsewhere. "It is commonly thought that A (connected to B and C) has nothing to do with TOPIC, but in fact, in circumstances Z and Y, X is involved." I think it builds the encyclopedia, to give context and links. Might you reconsider? Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is that "manual scavenging" is quite a specific Indian thing, whereas pit latrine and septic tank emptying generally is regarded as part of fecal sludge management and not manual scavenging. The latter is by definition something that is undignified, people without personal protective equipment and so forth. Emptying of a pit or septic tank - even if done "manually" - can be done in quite a professional manner - in which case it is not "manual scavenging". That's why I am not keen to mix up fecal sludge management with manual scavenging. In any case, the first sentence makes little sense: "A flush toilet connected to a septic tank or sewer system does not require manual emptying." - one would not empty the toilet itself but the pit or septic tank. - How about once we have the article on fecal sludge management, then we link to that, rather? EvMsmile (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is manual scavenging really just an Indian thing? The article is written as if it were, but both of the images are African. Is it intrinsically undignified? I'm not sure. That's why I added the quote (elsewhere) about the "dunnymen" being splashed with the contents of the buckets. Or is the defining feature of manual scavenging the conditions of informal labour? If they were working for a municipality, with a formal contract and maybe a union, but still with their hands, would that change the job title?

About the first sentence - it would make more sense with the addition of one word. "A flush toilet system connected to a ..." But perhaps I'm getting a bit lost. It could wait till your draft article is live, and see what links you propose. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 01:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking very good questions. Let me try to explain: The term "manual scavenging" is used in the Indian context where it is related to caste and where the government has actually officially "banned" the practice - it is illegal! The term is linked to human rights issues. When you take away the "term" and replace it with a more neutral term of "manual pit emptying" then this happens all over the developing world. Sometimes with poor personal protective equipment (the first photo of the article), sometimes with good equipment (the second photo). I added the two photos and I agree it's confusing now because they're from Africa. It would be better to have photos from India butI didn't have any at the time. - The best publication on manual pit emptying (and how it can be done in a "proper" way) is this one from South Africa: http://www.susana.org/en/resources/library/details/1712 - Another way of describing the difference is perhaps like this: take the term "sleeping rough" - it contains a "judgement" of sorts (like manual scavenging). But "sleeping outdoors" is the more broader term and has no judgement (like manual pit emptying). EvMsmile (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me that I'm on the right track. Your analogy of "sleeping rough" v "sleeping outdoors" makes sense. The "dealing with a full pit" was an interesting read. So if this article is going to remain specific to the Indian legal ban and human rights abuses, then another similar page is surely needed to describe those who do this job, or almost this job, but not in India. I hope your upcoming article will deal with the people. Do you know if Wikipedia already has any article on sewage workers in general? I immediately found this re Indian workers who aren't exactly manual scavengers (the BBC article doesn't use the term) but who aren't any better off. It would be interesting to bring garbage collectors, scavengers, dunnymen, gong farmers, etc. all together on one page, for a cross-cultural and cross-historical overview. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the new article on fecal sludge management will deal with this (sneak preview here but still needs more work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dmrobbins10/sandbox). I haven't seen an article on sewer workers, but I guess it could be integrated into the article on sewerage or sanitary sewer. Not sure what you would call an article that brings those occupations all together? This could be a list-type article perhaps? EvMsmile (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know when that article will be ready for review? It's really long already, and the parts I'm interested in (i.e. people) aren't yet fleshed out. 16:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Carbon Caryatid (talk)

I will send User:Dmrobbins10 a note about this, it would be awesome to have it up for review soon! EvMsmile (talk) 06:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good news, User:Carbon Caryatid, the article on fecal sludge management is now online! Do check it out. Thanks. EvMsmile (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll comment there, maybe in a few days. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This reference is incomplete: "Paul, Rhyll (2012). Pebbles in the Road." We need the full details, such as ISBN, publisher and URL. Do we really need that long quote in the reference? EvMsmile (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find what other details I can; I read the relevant few pages via Google Books. As for the quote, that's why I tucked it away in the notes, instead of trying to integrate it into the main text. I think it is important to document the working conditions of manual scavengers, even if they are called dunnymen. It's not only the technical aspects of sanitation that matter, but the lived reality, as sociologists say. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public toilets weren't introduced in Europe in the XIII century, as reported. Rome had a system of public toilets already in the Republican era. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.30.97.44 (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed that sentence and reference now as it was indeed not well referenced.EMsmile (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EMsmile: There are 3 editors who have disagreed with you. You need to stop edit warring and address the concerns here. An activist lecture isn't WP:RS, and promoting an activist organization on external links isn't allowed either since this subject is more for a general subject than a specific entity.

Statistics are an important figures and you would need a reliable source to back it up.

As for the categories, since this page is about an occupation and it does not only involve Dalits but also some other lower castes members. I don't think we should be reducing scope of this subject. NavjotSR (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's discuss it on the talk page. I can't see which of my edits you found controversial? I actually "softened" things a bit regarding caste, making it "caste-related" instead of "caste based". I also think it's important to clarify that the correct term would be "sanitary worker" instead of "manual scavenger" but you have undone that. As to that external link: Sanitation Workers Project (India) This is NOT an activist page. It is the page of a large research project that was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I think it fits perfectly under external links. Regarding categories, I am not that fussed one way or the other. I thought keeping the categories related to caste is useful, given that categories are a broad range of pages under a certain topic. What do you think, User:Dl2000? EMsmile (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many professions in the world are affected by race, caste, class. While this page does echo concerns about caste, it doesn't concern a specific caste group. Similarly, there are NGOs, projects, dedicated to every other profession, thus an organization dedicated to this subject isn't a special case. NavjotSR (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you don't agree to having this link under external links: Sanitation Workers Project (India) ? I think it fits perfectly well. Or do you have something better? the idea is to help people find more information. Here is another option for a good "external link": https://www.susana.org/en/knowledge-hub/resources-and-publications/library?searchkind=2&search=sanitation+worker&title=&author=&year= (it leads to the SuSanA library with the search term "sanitation worker". EMsmile (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on caste systems, but this seems to be an issue of trying to find additional, better secondary sources per WP:RS to support the caste-related manual scavenging subject matter raised by @EMsmile:. That means coverage from other places such as newspapers, academia, expert works, etc. Dl2000 (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is no shortage of publications that explain that link between caste and manual scavenging in India. Many of the publications cited in the article so far are saying that. But here is another recent one from Worldbank from 2019. It says "This is especially true when sanitation is linked to a caste-based structure and often allocated to castes perceived to be lower in the caste hierarchy, such as in India and Bangladesh, where sanitation work is perceived to belong to the Dalit caste."^[1]

Oh and here are another two recent publications (when I have time I will cite them in the Wikipedia article, or perhaps someone else can go ahead): about Zambia ^[2] and about India^[3]. The India publication says "Almost all sanitation workers belong to the lowest Dalit sub-caste communities".

We should have a think about whether we want this article to be solely about India (which is where the term "manual scavenging" is used) or if we want to broaden it to a range of developing countries - where the official name is "sanitation worker". There is already on article on sanitation workers in Wikipedia but it's short. So we could think about how we could optimise the situation of these two articles. Actually the current "sanitation worker" article redirects to "waste collector" which is focused on solid waste. Sanitation workers are dealing with more than just solid waste. Perhaps we should take out the redirect and have one article on "waste collector" and one on "sanitation worker" and one on "manual scavenging", where the latter would be only about India. Or have the article on "sanitation worker" to include the content about India but also about other developing countries. EMsmile (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A wider scope would be much better. Having all those subjects covered in one page would be ideal for us. NavjotSR (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps two articles would be ideal, rather than three. The article about "manual scavenging" probably needs to stay, but with a name change "manual scavenging (India)" and then be only about the situation in India. Those laws and caste issues are quite unique to India so therefore I think it's worth having that as an article on its own (but the main article would provbide a little summary/teaser). EMsmile (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start on this by trimming down this article so that it is ONLY about India and moving other content to waste collector. EMsmile (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have created a separate article on sanitation worker now. EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this looks like a good way forward, and I'll wikignome as much as I can. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Wyatt Tyrone Smith, I am currently editing this article and am baffled why you have reverted my edit with the justification of WP:NPOV? I am currently improving the article in comparison to the term sanitation worker. It would be nice if you could be more precise on what issue you have with my edits. EMsmile (talk) 13:55, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make it clearer in my edits what the term "manual scavenger" has to do with "sanitation worker" (they are not the same thing). Manual scavenging specifically refers to the undignified working conditions of no PPE! EMsmile (talk) 13:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits. The neutral tone wasn't maintained, perhaps just rephrase what you were writing. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange because I thought my edits were making it more neutral and factual if anything. So I was perplexed as to which parts you didn't like. I have redone it again now, using different wording, hope it's better. The whole thing is difficult to explain because sanitation work has to be done, but "manual scavenging" is sanitation work done unsafely and that was banned in 1993 but still carries on like so many other things (even caste itself). EMsmile (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the further reading list now. If you think any of the books are really important then please cite them in the text. They are rather unaccessible for the readers anyway (only the first one is available in Google books and it doesn't say much about the situation in India:

• Maggie Black, Ben Fawcett. (2012). The Last Taboo: Opening the Door on the Global Sanitation Crisis. Routledge. ISBN 1136532919.
• Bhasha Singh (2014). Unseen: The Truth about India's Manual Scavengers. Penguin India. ISBN 0143420380.
• B. N. Srivastava (editor). (1997). Manual Scavenging in India: A Disgrace to the Country. Concept Publishing Company. ISBN 8170226392. EMsmile (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few sentences that refer to Bhasha Singh's book and used ISBN to add the citation. It is however showing the year as 1971 instead of 2014. Just to also clarify that I am not referring to the original rather English translation by Reenu Talwar.Sparsh85 (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The automated citation tool doesn't always work perfectly but you can edit the fields that describe the publication afterwards. I've done that now. I've also added the alternative spelling of the name because I thought it was strange that it's a different spelling to how it's mentioned in the text. EMsmile (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the first sentence in the history section is relevant. The following sentence is also a good start for the section. Reproducing below the sentence (irrelevant according to me) for easy reference: "There is evidence of the existence of toilets with a water seal in the civilisations of Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. These cities had toilets which were connected to an underground drainage system lined with burnt clay bricks."Sparsh85 (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, User:Sparsh85. I have deleted those two sentences. EMsmile (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]