Talk:Breast tax#Redirect

{{edit extended-protected|Breast tax|answered=yes}}

In the section "Head tax", there is "Kingdom of Kingdom of Travancore". One "Kingdom of" too much in my opinion. MacGyver (talk) 07:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

:Check. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|Breast tax|answered=yes}}

The "breast tax" ({{tlit|ml|mulakkaram}} or {{tlit|ml|mula-karam}} in Malayalam) was a head tax

The "head tax" ({{tlit|ml|Tala-karam}} or {{tlit|ml|Talakkaram}} in Malayalam) was a head tax 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: It's not clear what you're suggesting should be changed in an article about the breast tax. —C.Fred (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

::In a ==Head tax== section

::Change this - The "breast tax" (mulakkaram or mula-karam in Malayalam) was a head tax

::To this - The "head tax" (Tala-karam or Talakkaram in Malayalam) was a head tax 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:::please check carefully 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:Reference: https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/nangeli-the-forgotten-dalit-woman-who-stood-up-against-travancores-breast-tax/862452/ 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

::Based on that source, the article is correct as is. —C.Fred (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:::Again, based on that source, there were two separate per-capita taxes: mulakkaram, or breast tax, levied on women, and talakkaram, or head tax, levied on men. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

::::yes your are right 👍

::::But in the article perticuly in a In a ==Head tax== section, there is error - The "breast tax" (mulakkaram or mula-karam in Malayalam) was a head tax, it should be The "head tax" (Tala-karam or Talakkaram in Malayalam) was a head tax. 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:::: 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::Technically the breast tax was a fee to allow women in certain castes to wear clothing on their upper bodies, but constructively it was a per-capita tax, also known as a head tax. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

::::::I think it would be better to add or edit/ change for clear details knowledge. 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:::::::See section below, where I've asked for input from more editors. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything to be gained by changing the section "Head tax" to "Poll tax" and making the following edit?

:The "breast tax" ({{tlit|ml|mulakkaram}} or {{tlit|ml|mula-karam}} in Malayalam) was a head poll tax imposed on the Nadars…

Looking for wider input than the one IP above. —C.Fred (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

:Consider enhancing clarity in the ==Head tax== section by revising 'The "breast tax" (mulakkaram or mula-karam in Malayalam) was a head tax' to 'The "head tax" (Tala-karam or Talakkaram in Malayalam) was a distinct form of head tax.' Thank you for your attention to detail!

:"A general tax was levied on men called Talakkaram, literally ‘head tax’; Mulakkaram literally means ‘breast tax’." 2409:40E5:16:B893:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

To pay tax, one should have money. It is common knowledge that labourers in medieval times were not paid wages as money. There weren't enough coins minted to pay money to everyone. The labourers were paid wages in the form of food and clothing. How, then would they pay these taxes ? Only the rich could pay taxes. Talakkaram was the tax that the feudal lord paid the King on the basis of number of his male labourers and Mulakkaram was the tax based on the number of female labourers. A person who paid more than five rupees was eligible to vote. 103.70.199.220 (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is weird. According to my edit summary for {{diff|title=Breast tax|oldid=1272640808|label=this edit}}, I moved all refs inside a {{tlx|reflist}}, and as far as I recall that's what I did. But the diff doesn't reflect that. When someone reverted it later, they were still there. The reason for the revert was that it supposedly caused some citation errors, but I'm not seeing any. What's going on here? Hairy Dude (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:{{U|Hairy Dude}} - This is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_tax&direction=prev&oldid=1272640808#cite_note-Kent-23 version of the page] before you edited it, this is the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_tax&direction=next&oldid=1265878625#cite_note-Kent-23 version of the page after you edited it] → {{font color | red|Cite error: A list-defined reference has a conflicting group attribute "web" (see the help page).}} {{pb}}I reverted it to the last stable version, and with your revert, you introduced the cite error back into the article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breast_tax&oldid=1275689284#cite_note-Kent-23 as seen here]. Why did you do that? Isaidnoway (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::I'l take a look. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|Isaidnoway|Hairy Dude}} no {{sfn}} and [https://...] within "refs={{refn|group=note}}"; see User:Joshua Jonathan/Tools#Notes. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeah, it was fixed when I reverted it back to the last stable version. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:54, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I see you solved the issue by converting {{tlx|sfn}} to inline Harvard citations. Unfortunately those are deprecated. Does the deprecation not apply to notes? I know the documentation says "It can be used within footnotes" but I was under the impression that meant specifically shortened references, as in this article's "References" section. I have managed to get rid of the errors while using {{tlx|sfn}} in this article-space sandbox (some errors didn't show up in user space for some reason). Hairy Dude (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

::::It's the only way to use shortened footnotes in an explanatory note, so yes, they are allowed there, as far as I know. Imperfection... c'est la vie. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)