Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics

This page is a notice board for things particularly relevant to Wikipedians working on articles on India.
Do you need the Indic name(s) of something or somebody? Post a request for it.

Click here to add a new section

Wikipedia Meetups edit Upcoming none Recent Outside India Past meetups

Category:Articles which use Indian English

Hello All!! This category Articles which use Indian English has only 211 articles under it. Can this be merged with the Category:WikiProject India articles? The template that read "This article uses Indian English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in British..........." can be added to the template of WikiProject India articles. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the issue, but might there not be legit articles about non-Indian or extra-Indian topics which are in Indian English? Maybe articles on certain kinds of business or technology, poli sci, or maybe some articles about neighboring countries like Sri Lanka and Nepal? And what of the Pakistan articles? Is "Pakistani English" sufficiently distinct from "Indian English" that a division is drawn? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a good time to have a discussion on whether we need this category and the associated Indian English template at all. Written English in India is similar to British English, though American spelling is catching on as well. In what way does an article - Ganges to take a random one :) - differ when it is written in 'Indian English' from what it would look like in some other English? Is there a substantive reason for the existence of these templates? --rgpk (comment) 21:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I see differences in phrasing which I assume relate to cultural issues. As far as spelling goes, yes, when the spelling is at all correct (!) then it seems generally to follow the British English pattern. I agree that US spellings are catching on, as indeed they are in Britain itself, but I've never fully understood the "Indian English" differentiation as far as spelling goes. I simply do not see any difference between that and one or other of US or British English. Perhaps mine is a limited experience, based as it is on a subgroup of India-related articles.

Examples of phrasing include using "places like A, B and C", where traditional British English would probably say "such as A, B, and C", and general usage of what would nowadays be considered somewhat archaic words in mainstream British writing/commentary - "knobbled", "nabbed", "copped" and those sort of things. Not wrong, but not now commonly found, for example in BE newspaper writing. I must admit that such phrasings grate with me in an encyclopedia but they are not worth fighting over and they do appear to be mainstream in India, eg: The Hindu and similar sources use them. Is that what is meant by "Indian English"? Or is it a reference, for example, to the Indian numbering system? There is certainly a place for a note reflecting that system because otherwise people start moving commas about & make a nonsense of things.

As an aside, one thing that fascinates me on a cultural level is the contradiction between excessive politeness & downright rudeness in talk page messages, which reflects a long-lost Victorian/Edwardian subservience clashing with the modern era (IMO). "Dear Sir, thank you for pointing that out. You are wrong and a complete bastard" is a (paraphrased) example. Please excuse me, but I do find it rather amusing. And I tend to roll with it - it is not just my hearing aids that have a filter built into them! I stress: no offence intended in the above. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sitush, you raise some good points. In particular, the one about the Indian numbering system is interesting because it is a clear difference between usage in India and usage in the rest of the world. The question then is whether we should follow the 'lakhs' and 'crores' numbering, or stick to the more universally accepted millions and billions (and trillions, though it does make the mind boggle!)? --rgpk (comment) 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not spelling differences as much as the additions to vocabulary. South Asian dialects have a larger set of accepted loan words which vary by region, some of them like Jungle, Mango etc have become common in all varieties of English while others like mofussil, lakh, crore etc aren't used outside of the regional varieties; likewise words that are considered archaic in BE are still part of regular vocabulary in IE -- "eve teasing" etc. The phraseology isn't very different from BE, but the main point to note here is that while BE has undergone a lot of change in sentence construction etc over the past century or so, the change isn't identical in SA dialects. e.g. "xyz expired on March 15th" is still an acceptable (and possibly viewed as gentler according to some sources) way to phrase "xyz died on March 15th". Spelling in sources fluctuates a bit, while The Hindu typically sticks to traditional BE spelling, The Times of India and Hindustan Times are far more accepting of AE spelling, in fact just last week I was reading a ToI source for an article and it used both varieties of spelling within the same article. We'll need to handle this on a common sense basis -- most sources related to government will have commentary in Indian English (legal reviews, newspaper articles, etc etc), likewise many newspapers use lakhs and crores when they refer to governmental works, but when it comes to talking about the revenues of Airtel or Reliance they switch to millions and billions. Same is the case with literature -- works by authors like Mulk Raj Anand, even the more recent ones are in IE and typical critical commentary is the same and therefore those articles ought to reflect that, OTOH authors like Tishani Doshi write in a more dialect-free way incorporating elements of BE, IE and AE and typical commentary follows the same pattern and in such cases our article should reflect that. —SpacemanSpiff 06:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like the ToI writers need a manual of style ;) "Expired" is a very good example of the phrasing issue, btw, and I must admit to changing that when I have seen it. My mistake: it never crossed my mind that it was IE. Most of these things are pretty trivial, as indeed are the differences between BE & AE, and I think that the policies etc exist mainly to prevent warring over minutiae.

However, I do think that the numbering issue is significant, and that using the Indian system is confusing. The fact that it is not even used consistently in India lends some weight to an argument that it would be better to abandon usage of it on en-WP except when it appears in direct quotations. Doing so would doubtless irritate a fair few of the 1 billion (sic) people in or connected with India, but there are another 5 bn (?) or so for whom presumably it means absolutely nothing and requires click-through links in order to understand. And, of course, this is en-WP, with its inherent bias. However, this is to drift away from the subject area of this thread. - Sitush (talk) 09:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd disagree on this, while the numbering system may find inconsistencies in newspapers etc, reporting by the companies itself is in Indian nos -- Tata Steel, Airtel etc. WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES exist for a reason. Just like we would accept an article about American breakfast to include biscuits in a manner that no one outside of the region has heard, it should be the same for other other national/regional varieties. Lakh and Crore can easily be wikilinked in an article to provide a definition. After all, the English speaking population of South Asia is a significant part of the English speaking population in general. If this needs changing, then WP as a whole should take a stance on a preferred variety of English, it shouldn't be based on specific words/phrases/topics. —SpacemanSpiff 10:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly many replies! (Though few drift aside.) But back to the point. When i see a category i see its two purposes. (Tell me more if there are any). First; i can sort out articles of similar category to go through them. Second; i read its template, which i consider as some sort of disclaimer. In this particular category i doubt anyone goes on searching all articles on wikipedia that use Indian-English. And even if someone does that, he wont be much satisfied to see so few articles & above all they all reading very much similar to other english forms. Now about the second part of the template disclaimer, i find it little informative. But if at all it is supposed to act as a disclaimer to avoid questions like "Why did you use 'lakh' instead of 'hundread thousand'? ", the same can be achieved by adding that disclaimer in the template of WikiProject India articles.

And as to the point of English used in various sources; English is the global language & it will be modified by its users & thus some times accepted by others too. Chapati, chutney, etc. are found in Oxford dictionary. Times of India uses small "i", unless its the start of the sentence. & i really doubt WP will be able to take any stance on language to be used in any article. (Except obviously for the aricles that specifically deal with languages.) Interestingly i also found that Indo-Pakistani relations is categoried under both Indian & Pakistani English, as if someone can makeout difference on which sentence belongs to which one. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

And.... What happened? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dunno. I'm not sure whether Sitush and SpacemanSpiff are supporting the use of ENGVAR or not. Perhaps a straight survey would help?

Survey: Do we need a separate Category:Articles which use Indian English or should it be merged with Category:WikiProject India articles

• Merge: No. Since there is little difference between written Indian English and British English, we don't need a separate category. --rgpk (comment) 16:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as is. There are 211 entries in the list, and I guess most of them are legitimate entries. They are independent dialects, just like Category:Articles which use New Zealand English, Category:Articles which use Trinidadian English, Category:Articles which use South African English, etc. All these mirror BE in terms of spelling, but it's the vocabulary and phraseology where they differ. However, this doesn't mean that anything under Category:WikiProject India articles should belong in the English variety cat either. —SpacemanSpiff 17:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: there can certainly be articles about concepts non-Indian or extra-Indian that are written in Indian English, and clearly articles about India that happen to be written in British or American English. I think this merge assumes total overlap. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• The two categories mean different things. Articles on primarily Indian topics should certainly use Indian English style where relevant, but WP India tagging means "related to India in some way" rather than "specifically Indian topic" - there are plenty of articles tagged with WP India which are written in British English or American English because that's their primary association. Shimgray | talk | 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as is. This is definitely needed for articles where usage of distinct Indian terms (mofussil, eve teasing etc) is heavy and footnotes are needed to explain them. --Sodabottle (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep as per Sodabottle. I see no need to use phrases such as "he expired on ..." but there is a need to use examples such as Sodabottle provides & for that reason the category is useful. Has anyone any idea what "they were winked" means? - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

  Never head that phrase but it illustrates my problem with a 'using Indian English' guideline. Since there is no reliable dictionary or phrasebook for Indian English, who is to say whether a particular phrase or word is being used legitimately? --regentspark (comment) 13:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Here you go RP: Lonely Planet, Edinburgh Univ Press. —SpacemanSpiff 12:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not spending my ill-gotten gains on the BBC! What does "they were winked" mean? (Also, does LP count as reliable? Their sources are usually friends and family.)--regentspark (comment) 13:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • We too have a lengthy article called Indian English. But there is no need for a category. Read my points below. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: 1) Refering clause "Non-defining_characteristics"; the language used in these articles doesnt define these articles. These pages can very well be written in Chinese or Norwegian (probably many of them already are) without affecting the contents & the purpose of having them. 2) Quoting from Which_categories_should_be_created; "...They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject." Now if a reader wants to know who wrote the Indian national anthem, he would most preferably go after the "WikiProject India Articles" than "Indian English Articles". 3) Above all, there is no distinctive line of difference between British, Indian & Pakistani English. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Uuuhhh!!! Dead again! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding things, this is an assessment category, not a mainspace article category. It is perfectly reasonable to have this as an assessment category as explained above. —SpacemanSpiff 13:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh i see! Sorry for the hoopla then! Strike the hammer. Keep it! -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Varna status in the lead of articles

Varna status...ah, what a painful topic. Here's what little I know: with the exception of one editor I've encountered so far, everyone seems to agree, in general, that varna status is complicated. Everyone seems to agree that, legally speaking, varna status has no validity in post-independence India, though most (but not all) editors seem to agree that there is still a lasting legacy. As MatthewVanitas pointed out on Talk:Lodhi, obviously it still matters to some people, at least in so far as they take a lot of effort to make sure that the article on their own group clearly and aggressively includes "kshatriya" claims. In dozens of articles, editors are fighting about exactly what references are needed to verify what status a given group has, especially in contested cases (which is, well, a lot of them).

A month or two ago, I believe that a fairly decent consensus was achieved to remove varna status from Infoboxes (and the hard-coded infoboxes that many of these articles use), simply because it's too complicated to be covered there (though I don't think that "decision" has actually been implemented everywhere). More recently, there has been some discussion about whether or not varna status should be mentioned in the article lead. Basically, the same arguments have been proposed as for the template--that varna status is far too complicated to be summarized in one or two sentences, and that often when citations are used, they don't present the whole picture or, in our attempt to summarize an issue, we start to brush up against WP:SYNTHESIS. Myself, I'm not fully convinced either way, but I thought that a centralized discussion here might help us see if there is any sort of general consensus on the issue. I considered making this an RfC, but I think we can keep it "in house" for the moment, as I'm not really trying to set a "rule" as much as I am to get a discussion going on how to handle this difficult issue.

So, what do others think? Should we remove all mentions of varna status from the leads of all such articles (note, of course, that this means removing both Shudra and Kshatriya claims from the lead)? Should we remove it in all cases, except where there is a clear consensus to include? Should we remove it in all cases, except where there is no dispute whatsoever (if someone knows of a good example, please point it out)? Or is there really no way to set an over-arching rule that applies to the entire category of articles? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I was the one who expanded the {{infobox caste}} based on MatthewVanitas' request. I think that the varna status in the infobox should stay because the infobox is optional to use and the varna status parameter in that infobox is optional too. It can be useful in the cases where there is no dispute. You and I were thinking on the same lines when you thought of an RFC. I would go even further - given the 100s or articles we have on the caste system (and this will only grow over the next decade as we get rid of the systemic bias), we should consider a policy or a guideline for this. Perhaps we can have a policy/guideline called Biographies of living communities on the lines of WP:BLP. When a dispute arises, we should remove varna claims wherever they cannot be sourced to rock-solid, academic literature from authors of excellent repute in this specific area. We must make it a point to use current sources (perhaps from the last decade or two) for present-day claims about varnas. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

On the infobox issue, Zuggernaut, you are very much in the minority. This is because for the vast majority of articles we deal with, the varna status is disputed (usually of the form "Generally grouped as X, but claim kshatriya status"). And then it takes a paragraph or twenty to explain exactly who claims what. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As I told MV, I am not really attached to the infobox and don't really care if it is truncated or even deleted altogether. It's good to see progress on this. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the varna will be anyways mentioned in the intro, if the varna identity has always been central to the caste's identity. For example, the intro of a community like Deshastha Brahmin would be "Deshastha Brahmins are a Brahmin sub-caste". In other cases, it's not important to mention the varna, esp. if the status is disputed.

It is a misconception that all the Jatis/castes/communities have always been strictly classified in a particular varna. The concept of varnas is based on occupations, not castes. While some Jatis have traditionally been associated with a single occupation, several others have shown considerable mobility (see sanskritization). Most of the Brahmincal texts about varna system say things like "craftsmen are Sudras", but not something like "XYZ community belongs to the Sudra varna".

Most of the sources cited for varna status are from the texts written in British India. These texts reflect the status of a particular caste at that time, not in earlier or modern times. So, it's better to avoid the discussion of varna in the intro in most cases. utcursch | talk 06:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO it is important that we should remove varna claims wherever they cannot be sourced to rock-solid, academic literature from authors of excellent repute in this specific area. I see no sense in continuing to use substandard sourcing. We want to be a high quality encyclopedia. Why should we be using amateur sources/ off topic sources/ OR / synthesis/ cherry picked material etc. to write articles. I think substandard sourcing is at the root of most of the present trouble on caste articles. The "varna status of X caste is disputed" entries in our articles are all synthesis. There are no sources to say that the varna status of any caste is disputed. How can we invent disputes? It is complete OR. These disputes simply do not exist. Neither in India, nor in the secondary sources. If there was some dispute, there would be at least two rival groups in India who dispute the status of each other etc. Otherwise, there would be secondary sources with titles like "The varna status of Foo caste"/ "Is Foo caste Brahmin?". Then they would go on to argue whether Foo caste is/is not Brahmin etc. If there would be "dispute" among secondary sources on this, they would also attempt to deconstruct each other's arguments. There are no such sources. No source says that there is any dispute. This "dispute" exists only on WP. This is in violation of WP:NOR. We don't get to invent disputes which do not exist. And saying that the varna status of X is disputed is misleading too. The common reader will take it to mean that there is some such dispute in India. There is no such dispute in India. About noting the varna status in lead, except for the situation outlined by Utcursh, IMO it should not be noted in lead. It is only the SC/ST/OBC status which is relevant in modern times. The varna discussion should go in a historical section near the bottom. Thanks and regards.MW ^ℳ 12:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

While I don't disagree with the comments above, I don't think we need new policies to deal with this issue. If a Varna status is clear and unambiguous, then there is nothing wrong with including it in an infobox or elsewhere. The fact that the Indian government has outlawed these sort of distinctions has no bearing on wikipedia. If a Varna status is ambiguous, then we don't state it, unless the the ambiguity itself is worth noting (i.e., reliable sources discuss the ambiguity). If two reliable sources say different things, "X is a Y" and "X is a Z", then we say something along the lines of "Sources differ on whether X is a Y or a Z, (ref1) (ref2)". If there is a controversy amongst editors about the status, then examining the reliability of sources (WP:RSN is good resource for that) and the normal consensus seeking and dispute resolution mechanisms are perfectly capable of dealing with that controversy. Removing Varna status entirely makes little sense since, apparently, that is what distinguishes these social groups. --regentspark (comment) 13:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "their varna status is disputed" is one which has recently been coined by, IIRC, Fowler&fowler.. It would no less accurate to say "There are differing opinions regarding their varna status", which would remove some of MangoWong concerns and is factual. It is a formula that I have used in the past. MW has raised these issues over and again, it has been examined at WP:RSN and WP:DRN and in all cases the sources were found to be ok & MW's interpretation of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH etc denied. We should not censor.

Detail of the varna needs to be mentioned where it applies to a community (and this may include some non-Hindu communities, as I seem to recall that for some reason this occasionally happened). It needs to be mentioned because it is historically significant to many communities & is widely discussed even today, but it does not usually need mentioning in the lead and, indeed, I have never mentioned it in the lead unless a statement to that effect already existed. I am generally not keen on infoboxes for caste articles and there has been a discussion about it on one of the template talk pages fairly recently. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

What might be useful, bearing in mind the comments of utcursch above, is some sort of boilerplate introduction paragraph that could be used in the article body for those situations were there are differing opinions: a brief explanation of the complexity/fluidity of varna, supported by some agreed reliable sources (eg: Susan Bayly is rock solid). - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I think RGPK's suggestions can solve most of the difficulty here. Saying Sources differ on whether X is a Y or a Z, (ref1) (ref2) seems OK to me, (as long as we don't use passing comments from off topic sources/ unreliable sources etc. to do this. We should be using sources in a policy compliant way only). And I disagree with the findings of the DRN, which Sitush refers to above. That material has not been reinserted into the Yadav article. If anyone reinserts that synthesis from unreliable sources again, I am likely to take it further for reconsideration. As for the result at RSN, it said that the matter should be discussed somewhere else because most of the users at the RSN would be unfamiliar with what constitutes an RS on Indian topics of this sort.MW ^ℳ 14:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall if it was F&F or myself who used "disputed", but I agree with MW that "differ" is a more open/literal term, and we have plenty of cases where sources differ. That said, there certainly are cases where, say, Source X says "the Brahmins say Shudra, the Foos say they're wrong and its Kshatriya", so there "dispute" would certainly be accurate (Kayastha and Nair, I think, address those issues). Agree with MW that "disputed" is best used in places where a literal debate/confrontation over the label is described by secondary sources. I'm a little less clear on the best word when Source X does not include the idea "says they're wrong" but clearly states two diverging opinions; "differ" would still be safe, but depending on larger context and supporting evidence it may be an actual point of conflict.

Regarding MW's "It is only the SC/ST/OBC status which is relevant in modern times." ... yes and no. We do not have crystal-clear officially applied varna labels in the modern day, but the issue continues to underlie social situations, and the WP readership seems well-nigh fixated on them. That is what dragged me into this caste situation in the first place, seeing uncited Kshatriya claims in so many caste articles it was a wonderment that any physical labour ever got done in medieval India, what with all the warrioring and ruling. So far as which Shudra claims are synthesis and which are not, best to leave those for the individual articles, but it is certainly clear that there are many, many uncited Kshatriya claims that need to be footnoted, and 90% of the time there is either no Kshatriya evidence or there is a "well, they claim Kshatriya, but it's complicated". MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

...WP readership seems well-nigh fixated on them. What the readership is interested in has no role in deciding article content. Article content is controlled by WP:DUE considerations.MW ^ℳ 15:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC) The folks who insert rubbish OR kshatriya claims are vain people. They don't get to indicate what constitutes encyclopedic material.MW ^ℳ 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with MW's last point: I've seen some caste-related articles featuring content that was included as a rebuttal to fantastic claims made by the vanity brigade. Some random dude belonging to the caste adds "This caste is of pure Caucasian ancestry" or "All great emperors of India belonged to this caste". In response, a hardworking Wikipedian with good intentions goes on a research spree and spends time writing 4-5 paragraphs disproving these theories. In reality, such content might not be important enough to warrant more than 1-2 sentences in the article. The random dudes should not get to decide what constitutes encyclopedic material. utcursch | talk 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Focusing on the behavioral aspects of this only, I feel MangoWong has been right most of the time. Admins then need to ask questions likes, why has he been taken to ANI on so many occasions, why was so much time wasted on the talk pages of so many articles (I have most in the category watchlisted), why were there accusations of sockpuppetry. Something has not worked here. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Can there be a clarification on what constitutes Reliable Sources? MW mentions above "as long as we don't use passing comments from off topic sources" and has made many comments in caste talk pages over the last few days on this very subject. I am concerned that unless this is clarified, disputes will continue.JanetteDoe (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary because each source needs to be evaluated independently. The 'shudra' comment source was found wanting in the Lodhi article and the others can be similarly evaluated. It is impossible to make a general statement about 'passing comments'. It depends on who said it, how it was said, and the way in which the material was used in the article. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Have fun then. I'll be over in the corner loudly thinking "I told you so".JanetteDoe (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi JanetteDoe. I think I should explain a bit more. Currently, at the talk:Lodhi, we were discussing a book which has only one instance of "Lodhi" in the whole book. So, there is only one sentence in that book which contains the word "Lodhi". When the source was first introduced into the article, it was done (apparantly) by looking at the latter half of this sentence only. I don't think that a book which has only one instance of the word "Lodhi" could be an RS for that article. And I don't think it is good to say something by looking at half of a sentence only. There is also another source in that article which does not even have half a sentence to support what it is supposed to support. It is a complete fake source. Then there is an encyclopedia which is being used as a source. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and WP is supposed to be written from secondary sources. There are good reasons for not using tertiary sources and I think I need not explain those reasons. On another article ( Yadav), I had a similar issue when I saw that we had a sentence synthesized from four sources. All four sources were problematic in some way or other. One of the sources was about Benaras, a city in India. It contained an anecdote about one particular person where it was mentioned (within brackets) that he is associated with X varna. That was being used to say that the Yadavs are X varna. That looks like a passing comment to me. Another source (about education etc.) had a table which was meant to show literacy rates of various castes in 1901, 1911, 1921, 1931. The table noted (in a bracket I think), the Yadavs as X varna. That was also being used to adduce that the Yadavs are X caste. This too looks like a passing comment to me. None of these sources were about Yadavs, and did not make any effort to discuss or establish their point about the Yadavs. This is why passing comments from off topic sources, unreliable sources etc. is becoming a concern. The WP:NOR is clear in saying that passing comments should not be used and anything sourced from passing comments is OR.MW ^ℳ 18:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether something is reliable in support of a statement does depend on the context, and therefore RegentsPark is correct. However, before you fall for any possible rewriting of Wikipedia history regarding MangoWong;s points above, you may want to read Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_4#Yadav (it is collapsed, so hit the show link). That gives you the full story rather than a potted one. - Sitush (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both for your explanations. I have followed the soap opera at length as it moved from Nair to Ezhava to Kurmi to Yadav to Lodhi to Kayastha. I marvel it has continued so long unchecked, hence my comments above and at ANI.JanetteDoe (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the events at Nair and Ezhava articles. Could you please provide your view of things. It may be useful to have a look at the "big picture".MW ^ℳ 12:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(Copied, more or less, from my post at Talk:Lodhi. Don't have more time.) This seems to be an especial problem with tilling and herding castes, such as Kurmi, Kachi, Koeris, Ahirs, Gwalas, Lodhis, .... For the Lodhi, for example, both the shudra classification by the British and the assertions of kshatriya past by the Lodhis themselves should be discussed in as much detail as is appropriate in a separate section. I don't really even object to them being in the lead, but only if they appear as the summary of the article that the lead is supposed to be. (As it was, they were appearing only (or primarily) in the lead. I do understand though that "shudra" was put in there as a response to the vacuous claims of Kshatriya origins by various IPs and SPAs.) As I see it, from a reading of the Baylys, primarily Susan, but also Christopher, many of the agricultural and pastoral castes were more or less outside the formal varna system and had remained so for many centuries. They were considered non-patrician (or non-elite or middle-to-low caste) social groups, but more crucially, clean. In other words, the twice-born, primarily the Brahmins, could have non-polluting interaction and dealings with them (buy their wheat or milk, drink water served by them, etc.). When in the mid-19th century, the patrician groups, for economic reasons, began to downgrade these groups, the groups reacted by claiming twice-born (mainly Kshatriya) status. All sorts of "founder myths" began to appear soon thereafter. Unfortunately, from a social progress perspective, these non-partician groups didn't show the courage of the Satnamis or the Kabirpanthis or later of an Ambedkar, who were able to reject the caste system altogether; instead they took to claiming dubious upper-class origins. Everyone and their brother was soon claiming direct descent from the Sun or the Moon. In my opinion, this was especially tragic for the Kurmis, who were so much more admirable, in terms of their work ethic, than the shiftless Brahmin and Rajput farmers whose customs they were now endeavoring to adopt. It did, however, give them political and economic power in the century to follow. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that a book which has only one instance of the word "Lodhi" could be an RS for that article. I covered this in another Talk page (glad we're centralised here now), but I contest this point. For extremes: we might have a book on Indian ceramics which mentions the Lodhi 130 times in reference to their pottery, but even if said books mentions "the Lodhi Kshatriya use a cross-hatch left-hand pottery wheel" and such phrasings at several points, that does not make the book RS for Kshatriya claims since the author is not interested in caste politics, so is using the term "Kshatriya" incidentally. In contrast, if a book uses "Lodhi" once, but in an explicit context of "And then in the 1901 census... X, Y, and Lodhi were listed as Shudra castes" and the book itself is largely about caste identity and politics by a scholar of sociology/poli-sci/history/ethnology, then I argue it's an RS, and that the mention though brief is not "passing" but explicit. I do, however, agree with MW that said source along cannot support "Lodhis are Shudra", but can address the literal statement "the 1901 census listed the Lodhis as Shudra". That particular fact wouldn't rate going in the lede, but could definitely go in Caste Politics as a historiographic example explicitly backed by an RS. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

if the varna identity has always been central to the caste's identity I don't do Brahmin topics generally, but my vague impression is that most Brahmins' status is uncontested, save a few groups that "rediscovered" Brahmin status, or Brahmin groups accused of losing their varna through failure to uphold standards. On the opposite end, are Dalit groups generally non-contentious, at least in terms of not having a claim to be of the four varnas? I know there are certainly Dalits that don't like being called "Dalit"; on Talk:Pallar we had folks asking us not to use that term, but major Indian newspapers were noting the Pallar among the Dalits as late as a couple weeks back. So is "Foo is a Brahmin caste" okay 80% of the time provided we check around for contradictory statements? Is "Foo is a Dalit caste" generally okay in the lede, or is there a better way to address that issue? Regarding Vaishya, my impression is that that one is usually a bit more complicated, particularly as, like the Kshatriya, the Vaishya are said to have died out in the distant past. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right in your observations. It is usually the Kshatriya/Vaishya like castes that have varna disputes. I will try to explain this is plain words. The Brahmins were the ones originally who affixed varnas. There are many dominant/successful communities in India that fall under this Kshatriya/Vaishya grey area. The Brahmins in an obvious attempt to undermine these really established and powerful groups' credentials viewed them as Sat-Shudra instead of placing them in boxes of Kshatriya or Vaishya. Because Brahmins thought "well these guys will behave like bigshots (which they already are for all practical purposes) if they ritually become dvijas Kshatriyas or Vaishyas, so lets create a new ridiculous class Sat-shudra and give it to them". Mostly Jats, Kayasths, Patels in the north and Reddys, Vellalars, Nairs, Kammas of south fall into this Sat-shudra category. I mean sat-shudra category is so ridiculous it is oxymoronic. Sat-shudra literally means a clean servant. Does it really matter if a servant is clean? His clothes will be disheveled 5 minutes into his day job. LOL. This sat-shudra is one of the wily inventions of the Brahmins. Well a few more pointers about varna related issue. If a group is OBC and historically Shudra and a caste editor is claiming otherwise, 99% chance are that he is wrong. OBC + historically shudra = most likely unequivocally shudra. Now if a caste is Forward(FC). FC + historically sat-shudra = chances are most definetely a varna dispute candidate and most definetely has kshatriya/vaishya functions but viewed as shudra as you can infer from above. Cheers Foodie 377 (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Outcome/way forward?

As JanetteDoe pointed out above, this has been going on for a good 4 months now at caste articles like Nair, Ezhava, Kurmi, Yadav, Lodhi, Kayastha, etc. The conversations at many of these articles have centered around the same Shudra issue. The behavioral pattern here has been something like "if the IPs add WP:PEACOCK stuff to articles then we are going to respond by adding stuff in the lead (even though the article bodies have near-zero content on the topic and by completely ignoring WP:LEAD which clearly states that the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article) reminding readers that they are Shudras (a loaded term that is potentially libelous) first and foremost. Clearly this is not the way to respond to drive-by IPs.

Nobody is condoning or is likely to condone the the edits of the drive-by IPs whose aim is to make their own caste people look better. We have policies to deal with these IPs. However an experienced editor, User:Sitush, does seem to have a behavioral problem in this area of Indian castes and if anyone proposes a topic ban, I would be the first one to support it. Zuggernaut (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

You make a very valid point. Drive by IPs happen all the time in all sorts of WP articles. That alone should not be the reason why Varna is discussed in caste articles. Editors are free to describe in detail the varna of the particular caste and address all issues. Jumping on the varna issue just when a drive by IP shows up is emotional and reactionary behavior. Even if editors jump in when a drive by happens, fine, just that they should be diligent enough to write something about the varna status and not just leave the infamous "shudra stamp". Because in many cases the varna would be disputed. Foodie 377 (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Any talk of topic ban for Sitush is ridiculous. He is an experienced, knowledgeable, and prolific editor. Moreover, most of us have very little experience of the kind of insistent POV pushing he and MatthewVannitas have to deal with. Caste puffery is not just perpetrated by drive-bys; more commonly it is perpetrated by POV-pushers who keep reappearing under different usernames and IPs, i.e. regulars masquerading as drive-bys. I will oppose any topic ban for Sitush or MatthewVannitas. Let us be very clear. The criminals are the reincarnating POV pushers; not Sitush and MV, who are editing within Wikipedia guidelines. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to make proposals about editors being topic-banned - Zuggernaut has no business raising it here in that manner, please take allegations like this to WP:ANI. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with a guideline on avoiding unnecessary varna stuff in the lead, a topic ban on editors like Sitush would be completely wrong.

Editors like Sitush and MatthewVanitas have been doing the completely thankless job of fixing caste puff pieces -- if anything, they should be given a barnstar for their efforts. Such articles have been lying in a bad state for years. I tried fixing several of these articles a couple of years ago, but gave up because of completely irrational behavior from drive-by caste propagandists, threats and personal attacks. I stopped fixing these articles after an editor advised me not to bother about them since only people belonging to these castes read them.

I started editing these caste-related articles again a few days ago, and I've already been called a "goon" and threatened with an arrest for "cyber crime". It's not surprising that editors like Sitush, who have to deal with such users on a regular basis, overreact sometimes.

Try cleaning some of these caste-related articles, keeping them on your watchlist and protecting them from drive-by 'my-caste-is-awesome' users. Believe me, it's not an easy task. utcursch | talk 20:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the events following your attempt to rid the articles of puffery. So, I accept that what you say about your own experience is correct. However, in the present case, the situation seems to be different. All the trouble seems to start after the "cleanup". It is not just a cleanup. Anyone and everyone gets labeled as S*****. They want to say that everyone in India is a S*****. And they don't want anyone else to touch their versions of the articles. As soon as anyone says or does anything on these articles, he/she is an absolute sock/meat puppet/ canvassed from orkut/ SPA/ caste warrior/ POV pusher/ tendentious/ mycasteawesome ed/ does not know English etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. MW ^ℳ 01:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost 100% of the people who tried to oppose you guys have been blocked/banned &/ driven away / driven into becoming SPs. How do I get any support at ANI? I will not take it to ANI.MW ^ℳ 02:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right MangoWong. Not to mention the 2-3 admins who blindly support Sitush & Co in insulting various Hindu-related topics. A lot of people like me have given up editing Wikipedia because of these people's bullying. Some of the editors have even written to Jimbo Wales. No use. I agree with you. These is no point in taking this to ANI, when the admins themselves are so much biased. Axxn (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Which were the articles in which you had difficulties. Please also describe the difficulty in brief.MW ^ℳ 06:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Axxn, I've never been involved with the article on your caste (Nair), but for the record, the users like Shannon1488 were blocked for sockpuppetry, which was confirmed by the checkuser clerks. These users were blocked by a number of different admins (much more than 2-3). Now if you're claiming that there is some anti-Nair conspiracy by Wikipedia admins worldwide, I can't really help you. Angry Nair editors have accused Sitush of "calling Nairs as dogs", which is not even true. The text is sourced, and clearly mentions that it's a mythological, non-derogatory story. Ancient Hindu texts hold dogs in respect (see Shvan). If you associate dogs with something derogatory, it's your problem. When I first came across Nair article a couple of years ago, it was all about how Nairs are like Samurais and awesome warriors etc. The article is in much better shape now. People who question blind glorification of a caste/community are not automatically "biased" or "insulting various Hindu-related topics". utcursch | talk 07:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWang, Sitush and MatthewVanitas have edited several caste-related articles, where they have not made any attempt to insert the word Shudra. You're just looking at what you want to look at. The users who have been blocked have been blocked for personal attacks, incivility and sockpuppetry. Nobody forced them "into becoming SPs" -- they did so because they tried to compensate the lack of sources with strength in numbers. About the issue of overemphasis on the varna status: I've agreed with you before -- there have been overreactions to the puffery attempts. Thanks to your efforts, we've at least some consensus about avoiding it (esp. in the lead), and things should be better now. Unless we all stop thinking of each others as enemies with some personal agenda, we cannot resolve issues like these.

By the way, you need not censor the word "Shudra" with asterisks -- it is not an offensive term like "nigger", and is common in scholarly discourse (the Dalit icon Babasaheb Ambedkar wrote an entire book on the topic: Who Were the Shudras?). Most of the castes in India have been mobile across varnas, and if there are solid sources which say that they were classified as Shudra at one time, I do not see any reason why the fact should not a little mention in the article. utcursch | talk 07:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

They do not use "solid sources". They use bullshit quality sources, OR, misrepresentations, synthesis, misinterpretations etc. for S***** fixation and other defamatory material. In addition to that, if anyone points out weaknesses in their material, they indulge in an endless amount of ABF, incivilities, accusationmongering, argumentativeness and do not accept anything when weakness in their material has been explained clearly and even start saying completely absurd things when they have no logical argument left and continue to try to do the same thing again and again through some means or other. How do I AGF with that?MW ^ℳ 08:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. My use of asterisks is due to some other reason. Please do not bother about that.

If you feel that they're being unreasonable any time, you can resort to formal dispute resolution. I don't think the current disputes require something like ArbCom intervention -- they can be easily dealt with mediation from someone not involved in editing caste-related articles. utcursch | talk 08:48, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I (with help from others) have been taking down rubbish quality material put in by them, with or without DR, despite the endless harassment. When I take down some rubbish material, they put in some new rubbish material. Googlebooks can provide an endless supply of rubbish sources, you see. Even if I manage to take down 5/10 instances of rubbish material through DR, they could keep reinserting the same sort of thing through new rubbish sources. There is also an endless amount of OR, synthesis and misrepresentation which one can do. What do I do with that?MW ^ℳ 09:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what the dispute resolution is for. Let a third party determine whether the material being added classifies as "rubbish" (in your opinion) or not (in Sitush's opinion). utcursch | talk 10:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What do I do about refs which have been put in by "reading" them through the googlebooks snippetview only or by reading the latter half of a sentence only or by not knowing who or what the author is?MW ^ℳ 14:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, if you think a non-reliable source is being used to support a controversial statement, the best thing to do is to point out why. Then, if you feel that you're not being listened to, bring it up to a wider audience. A brief note on this page always helps. Repeatedly saying that a source is 'rubbish' or protesting about sensitivity on a talk page is not helpful because it quickly becomes disruptive. There are many editors here who are good at evaluating the quality of a source and whether it is being used appropriately or not, and you will get a fair answer from them. Reasonable people, discussing issues in a reasonable way, will not find themselves blocked or banned for any reason from wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 14:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is true for content in areas where the number of editors with a broad grasp of the subject matter are in a majority. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've had many a productive collaboration with User:MatthewVanitas, two examples of which can be found in the history of this page ([1], [2]). However the environment has been poisoned ever since User:Sitush entered the fray with his reactionary and emotional edits, which have ignored basic Wikipedia policies for months and months. While I did propose a new guideline/poilicy above WP:BLC on the lines of WP:BLP, I feel it might be an overkill now since I discovered WP:BLPGROUP today. WP:BLPGROUP could have been applied to Sitush's as well as to the IP edits. I am surprised why it wasn't done so.

I agree with Utcursch's overall spirit but formal resolution methods are too time consuming for people who can spare only a few minutes in an editing session. Regarding Ambedkar, he died more than half a century ago so his book is hardly recent content. Indians do not use and have not used these terms for generations now so we need recent/modern sources using these terms to substantiate the claim. Also, the article on Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar (still a virgin article, untouched by Sitush), simply states his caste, the Mahars (also a virgin article), and moves on to discuss his many accomplishments. Compare this with articles like Barrack Obama, African-Americans, United Negro College Fund, etc and you might start appreciating where the term can and cannot be used. Not entirely unrelated is the fact that The National Commission for Scheduled Castes, after consultation with the legal department, has asked the state governments not to use the word ‘Dalit’ in official documents, saying the term was ‘unconstitutional’. [3] Zuggernaut (talk) 05:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Really? That's another example of misrepresenting what I have or have not done. - Sitush (talk) 06:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I had not brought up WP:GROUP etc. because I was facing great resistance to nursery level stuff from core policies like WP:V and WP:NOR.MW ^ℳ 08:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me start with the dog controversy itself as utcurschhas pointed out . sitush has used sadhashivan as reference in both nair page & ezhava page. sadhashivan is a ezhava himself and a glorifier of his own community [please read the book to see more ridiculous clams] . ezhavas because of there new found status & power after independence and eradication of feudal system in kerala wants to be known as superior race [there are lots of credible sources to show that they where basically toddy tappers |http://www.iias.nl/iiasn/28/IIASN28_28_2.pdf].So ezhava historians are working 24/7 to insert brand new history like sadhashivan is doing. they are simply calming kerala brahmins & nairs to be inferior & ezhavas chera kings. let this kind of reference be used in ezhava page only [as he represent that community]. why in nair page?? we have recommended sitush pretty high number of times to remove that statements as that dog statement itself is saying it is wrong. sitush is keeping it for his own fulfillment of ego. I also agree with the above senior editors that sitush is unfit for WP editing.I suggest removing him from Indian cast related topics.Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 07:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, I am getting fed up of all these misrepresentations, which until today I have been ignoring. Please prove that I was the person who originally introduced Sadasivan to the Nair article. I am not even sure that I did so for the Ezhava one but definitely did not for Nair. This continued, and growing, campaign is based on inaccurate, oft-repeated statements. As anyone who edits Wikipedia should know, it is best not to believe everything that you read. Now, either take my conduct to WP:ANI or stop this. - Sitush (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Besides as far as i know ,according to WP law this dog sentence only represents small minority view & should not be in any article. So its ok to remove it right sitush? & its really sad to hear terms like 'fed up' from such a senior editor.even though we differ in our oppinion its nothing personal. Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sitush seems to have started editing extensively 24/7 from 1-1-11 only. Even though the account is earlier, not much editing prior to that date.MW ^ℳ 09:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This thread is deteriorating into gratuitous statements about editors rather than about content. MangoWong, your last statement above is completely off the wall and I suggest you strike it out. For the rest, please take any issues you have with a particular editor to WP:ANI, this is not the right forum for that sort of thing. --regentspark (comment) 12:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Setting aside arguments about personal behaviour best saved for ANI:

• The "dog" etymology on Nair is cited from Kerala-jatyachara-nirnayam (a Brahmin work), and I haven't seen any evidence that this violates WP:FRINGE. Regarding as that dog statement itself is saying it is wrong, this is again where a lot of complainants on the Nair page fail to understand that even incorrect theories are of historical importance. We have several etymological options on that page, and clearly no more than one can be right, but the fact that people did try to tie Naga to Nair shows the thought process of the community, their priorities and interests, etc. Similarly, the dog story represents one Brahmin take on the issue, and Nambudiri-Nair issues played a significant role in how the Nair were classified/viewed.
• Zuggernaut, it's an interesting argument, but reading the policy I really don't see how Wikipedia:BLPGROUP can be read to say that caste articles get extra-special protection. First off, BLPGROUP seems more to be about "legal persons" such as corporations, etc. Further, when it mentions A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. I strongly doubt that it refers to a caste of 50,000 or 100,000 or 1.8 million people, rather than a corporation of six people where comments about the corporation are almost equivalent to comments about the leader of the six. Yes, caste articles should certainly follow WP:V and such, however I disagree that we should "avoid hurting feelings" in caste articles. Clearly, we shouldn't go out of our way to insult people or provoke riots, but if a properly sourced description of the controversy of Shivaji's Rajput status kicks of riots in Maharashtra (and it is my understanding such has happened in recent decades over print media), then that's on them, not us. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If BLPGROUP is not applicable then we need a policy or guideline (WP:BLC) as discussed above. I will wait to see how this discussion is closed and will discuss with the Wikimedia Foundation after that, if necessary. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

AARRGGHHH!!!! Why is castism the only topic discussed in this Project? Just like how you haven’t paid attention to improve various other pages, why can’t you do the same with these when you have no knowledge and also sense to get a consensus with each-others? Churches and Convents of Goa, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, doesn’t have the list of churches and convents in it. Garden City Bangalore doesn’t have list of gardens in it. Take a look at this shabby list; List of hospitals in India. Mohammed Rafi’s page says he has sung “…4,516 Hindi film songs, 112 non-Hindi film songs, and 328 private (non-film) songs from 1945 to 1980.” Our list List of Songs by Mohammed Rafi has only around 2000 songs. See these red links here Padma Shri Awards (1954–1959). Even 2010–2019 list has red links.
Lets give you all a nice piece to read & understand. Caste based on character. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

ℳ, I was saying senior than I am, not in comparison with you guys .

ok back to topic..MatthewVanitas it is not just a specific issue , its an overall issue in his[sitush] way of editing. He is too aggressive at the same time losses his cool fast. a few IPs pretending to be from a community comes & calls him names, Hes totally against that community he is editing. He puts what ever things to make them looks bad. Thats not right!. Another thing is you can add all the datas you wanna say about a community but you can do it with out hurting community members feelings with well selected words. sitush is just causing trouble by placing controversial things in ledge itself!. He is asking for trouble & when he gets it he is already 'fed up' with everything. One example of his edit is nair page , Am sure every one here will agree nairs were nobles had previlages & considered as an upper cast,only below namboothiri brahmins & kshatria kings. But when you read the page sitush has created you may even start to think this guys should have got SC reservation! This flipping of social status happens in lots of sitush articles especially when some IPs are troubling him. I will have to say he is not mature enough to deal with cast related topics which require verry good deal of sensitive handilings.Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with regentspark here--this is not the place to express your problems with other editors. If you think Sitush is uncivil, go to WP:WQA. If you think his editing is so bad that he needs to be sanctioned (i.e., blocked, topic banned, etc.), go to WP:ANI. If you want to generally gripe about his problems and take the community's feelings about what he has done wrong, open an WP:RFC/U. If you specifically think he's made improper edits on an article (i.e., you're not complaining about him as a person but a specific point in a specific article), go to WP:RSN for issues on reliable sources, WP:NORN for issues on original research, WP:NPOVN for issues on neutrality, and WP:DRN for more complex problems on a single article. Wherever you go, be ready to present specific diffs (examples of edits) that demonstrate whatever you thinkis wrong. If you don't want to do that, then, and I say with as much kindness as I can muster, keep quiet. Many of the comments above are unsupported criticisms that come exceedingly close to, if not cross over into, personal attacks. Wikipedia has a specific set of processes to address complaints against other editors. Bringing up the complaints at each and every article, in every section of every noticeboard, etc., is not the way we handle things. Bringing up unsubstantiated complaints and refusing to follow our processes is itself unacceptable and can lead to blocks, topic bans, and the like. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

'keep quiet' this is how WP admins handle things regarding sitush?!...I see!!!! i will do that then.

btw thanks for taking your time to explain all procedures Qwyrxian Sesshomaru666666 (talk) 13:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not how WP admins "handle things regarding sitush". It is how WP admins handle editors who have great energy to complain, but no energy to make coherent, cited arguments on WP:DRN.JanetteDoe (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. I have absolutely no problem if anyone wants to pursue some form of complaint or sanctioning against Sitush. I would be happy to participate in such a discussion, and accept that, while I find Sitush's editing to generally be positive, perhaps I'm not seeing something and welcome the input of the community. What is absolutely not allowed, under WP:HARRASS, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL, is to just wantonly insult, criticize, and fight Sitush (or any editor) in every single venue except the ones where a solution can actually be found. If you want Sitush off the project (or off Indian articles, or Indian caste articles or whatever), do it by getting community consensus that he's actually done something wrong--don't do it just by harassing him everywhere you can. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ram Swarup Joon as a reliable source

Ram Swarup Joon is cited quite a lot across various articles but has minimal hits on GBooks and GScholar, at least under his full name. Using an alternative spelling garners only a few more references, viz. Ram Sarup Joon. Of course, the lack of hits may be in part because they simply have not filtered through Google's systems, although his major (and perhaps his only) work - History of the Jats - has apparently been in English translation for some time. That book is of course the one that has what appears to be a typo in the publisher's name: "Jaitly Painting [sic] Press".

My bs alarm has been ringing on and off for a while about this source, which seems sometimes to be used for POV-type statements. Is the person or the book reliable per the reliable sources policy? I ask here rather than at WP:RSN because of the subject-specific nature and the fact that apparently he originally wrote in Hindi. - Sitush (talk) 09:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd use it carefully and treat it more as a primary source than as a secondary source. The writer was a soldier who wrote a history so it is likely based on his own perceptions of an oral traditions and religious texts. My suggestion is that any material from that source that is contested be included only if it can be verified from other sources. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Rgpk. Should be treated as primary source for caste reinvention and improvement by the Jats in the first third of the 20th century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I ask for clarification, please? Are you both saying that Joon can be used, for example, as an example of the caste reinvention/"sanskritisation" genre and nothing much more than that? I've found 59 article that use him as a source, although there may be others if a slightly different search phrase was deployed. Quite a few appear to refer to his lists of clans/gotras - how would they fit into the scenario? He clearly fails the WP:ACADEMIC test, if we were talking here about notability rather than reliability. - Sitush (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My take on this is that the source is primary and not reliable. Anything that is less than certain and is not supported by other independent sources can be deleted. (The practical implication is that Joon is fairly useless as a source.) --regentspark (comment) 01:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That is pretty much my take on things but it is better to invite opinion in at least a vaguely neutral way. I'll wait a little before doing some cleaning up, just in case some alternate views surface. I think that I will also investigate more generally whether both the article about Joon and that about his book should perhaps head towards AfD (this was not my original intention, but the omens do not look good). - Sitush (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have any list of reliable sources. Reliability is a very subjective matter. If we have to rely only on google search then what is the need of Wikipedia. We have to rely on printed matter also. It should be verifiable. This type of biased approach towards relying on history published by Britishers only be stopped. Britishers had wasted interest and wrote history accordingly. We do not rely on their history. Let us have a neutral and unbiased approach. burdak (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that we don't have a list of reliable sources. Instead, we have a general policy, found at WP:RS. When editors aren't sure, or there is a disagreement, we discuss the issue together and try to reach consensus. Three editors above all agree that the source is, at best, a primary source, which means that it can't be used to verify any facts other than about itself. Given the descriptions above, I also concur with this analysis. Thus, if an editor finds Joon being used as a source somewhere, they are probably in most cases okay to remove it; whether or not they keep the underlying content would be an issue of how contentious it is, though they should at a minimum mark it as needing a citation needed and at most actually remove it and explain clearly in an edit summary. I don't understand what you're talking about regarding google searches. No one is suggesting we use only online sources, but, similarly, no one should be suggesting that just because something is printed in a book is it suddenly a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head about the British bias and the vested interest part. However, these sources are valuable in some aspects, particularly in areas of data collection, censuses, cartography, and other objective areas. We cannot discard the sources altogether. A better approach is to use the sources judiciously. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you Zuggernaut, but the problem with generic statements like 'use the sources judiciously' is that it is unclear who that 'judicious' decider is. We solve half of the problem by avoiding primary sources like Ram Swarup Jain because primary sources, whether British or Jat, are likely to be biased. We go to secondary sources, and I agree that we should prefer modern secondary sources over older ones, to sort through the various claims by primary sources. If these secondary sources are biased as well, then so be it, because it is not for a wikipedia editor to decide what the 'truth' is. An encyclopedia does not publish truth, it publishes received wisdom. --regentspark (comment) 13:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Resorting to commonsense is the best idea if judiciousness raises your suspicion. WP:VNT may make more sense in the Western context since the primary and secondary sources there do a pretty good job of getting the truth right. Due to a systemic bias in the real world (things such as lack of funding and grants for research, especially in social sciences, unscrupulous publishing houses, little interest in things other than engineering, medicine, etc), applying WP:VNT to India situations might be being overzealous. VNT works only to the extent that you do not upset people or whole communities. Once a threshold is crossed, there can be trouble and we should avoid that. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut, resorting to common sense is impractical because what appears to be common sense to one person can easily be nonsense to another. It is better to stick with verifiability because that is the best arbiter of what is commonly believed. Also, I don't agree that the an encyclopedia should actively seek to censor itself based on what some editors believe would be upsetting to some communities. We don't invent anything new but only report, in an encyclopedic format, what is already out there. --regentspark (comment) 18:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the Wikipedia community, though virtual, exists in the real world with real world issues is what common sense is. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to throw in my 2 cents. WP is basically a common sense free area. These dated British sources and other amateur sources are generally biased, saying wrong things (in the sense that they keep talking on the basis of obsolete racist theories of anthropometry, and other obsolete theories like “Aryan Invasion Theory” etc.) They are also known to say many things which would be factually wrong, and (as already noted) biased due to vested interest. If we try to judge what part of these (basically unreliable) sources is reliable/unreliable etc. we are doing OR. That is against WP:NOR. Instead of doing OR on our own, it is best to let contemporary scholars in the field judge what part of these sources is reliable, how reliable it is, how relevant it is. If these dated &/ amateur sources are saying something important and worth noting, the contemporary sources would explicate on it, and IMO we should source these things from contemporary academic sources only. Only historians or academics are qualified to use these sources judiciously, and we should not take it upon ourselves to do what we are not supposed to be qualified to do. Using unreliable &/ obsolete &/ amateur sources means we are writing a poor quality encyclopedia. Writing a poor quality encyclopedia is not the goal of this project. Even if we are going to use sources with vested interest etc. we should warn the reader about it. We should attribute the POV of the source clearly, or show what other problems which these sources might have. Although this may reduce the “biased source” complaint, it still does not address the “unreliable” issue. Lastly, it seems racist to regard only amateur British sources as RS, even when they are obsolete, but not amateur Indian sources. Same standards should apply to sources regardless of ethnicity etc. Basically, my view is that we should not be using obsolete &/ amateur sources and should stick with contemporary expert sources. Thanks.MW ^ℳ 08:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If the modern secondary sources are also biased, there is something which WP eds can do. It should be easy to attribute the bias through some other secondary source.MW ^ℳ 14:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course. Provided the other secondary source is reliable. My point is that we can't just say that 'the brits are biased' and rewrite things ourselves. Wikipedia editors are not qualified to speak as experts. --regentspark (comment) 15:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. The bias would need to be attributed through some reliable secondary source. We can't do it on our own. If we use some Brit source and say 'the brits are biased' in article space, it would necessarily require a reliable secondary source to do so.MW ^ℳ 18:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Without delving into psychology etc too much, MangoWong has a rosy-eyed view of "contemporary expert sources". They will contain biases just as older sources contained biases. What we hope is that they are "standing on the shoulders of giants". To be sure, they are to be preferred where available but never, never assume that they are any less biassed than their predecessors. They require assessment. This obession with "Britisher" bias is a little disconcerting, if not entirely unexpected: yes, much that was written during the British colonial period is a dubious merit but, equally, much that is written now by contemporary commentators is of dubious merit. Like it or not, we deal in many instances with hypotheses rather than facts, although this is something that perhaps scientists appreciate more than the average Joe.

We should not dismiss sources written by the British any more than we should dismiss sources written by Indian people, nor should we always dismiss sources merely because they are "old". We should judge them each on their merits and in the situation that they are being used, and consensus applies. - Sitush (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Shamli

The recent edits of this article are a mystery to me; perhaps someone with a knowledge of the area could have a look (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)).

requesting to organise the workshop in indore

i was thinking to organise a one day seminar over wikipedia at our college campus before wikiconference to introduce wikiconference in INDORE and to aware the students of central india with wikipedia concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avitesh (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it'd be better if you went through one of these channels. Thanks, Lynch7 16:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Party name for Mayor/CM in city articles

Recently in articles like Chennai, Bangalore, Ahmedabad, Mumbai etc, there have been edits where the party name of the leader was put after their name in the infobox. Since this is happening in all Indian articles, I thought I'll leave a note here. Also worthy of note is the article India, where party names are mentioned after the leader's name. My opinion is that party names should be included, as is done in United States. In any case, I think we should develop an India-specific guideline on this. Relevant diffs: [4], [5], [6], [7] etc.Lynch7 16:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, I'm guessing CM is going to be included only for Delhi, no other city? —SpacemanSpiff 18:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clearer. Well, this situation is not going to be limited for cities, and it may well extend to State articles, or even other LS/RS constituency articles. I was thinking of something like a blanket guideline concerning all politicians in infoboxes of cities/states/country. Lynch7 18:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, party names for the head of a state sounds reasonable in a state article. But I don't think it's woth mentioning in a city mayor's case. — Abhishek  ^Talk 14:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are mentioning mayor's name, there is nothing wrong in mentioning party's name too. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, since they are all politicians. Presidents or Governors are a different matter. Lynch7 15:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness#Request Move

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness#Request Move. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Template:Z48 Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Urgent help required - link fixing for disambiguation!

I came across some new pages on rail lines, and discovered an unholy mess with wikilinks (confusion between various spellings of Jayanagar, Jaynagar, Jainagar, and the 'other' Jayanagar (Limbini) .....)

So I fixed those links I found to be wrong, re-named a page, addid disambig links to three pages, and created a some disambig for the various spellings ...

Which has left a humungous list of links needing to be checked / fixed from the disambig pages! I really can't do all this myself (I'm only a poor new page patroller, not an India enthusiast)!

WikiPedia needs your help! Here's a list of the pages which need to be checked so make sure that the links are pointing to the correct place:

the list!

Many thanks, in advance for your help in tidying up. :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yajaka Brahmans

Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya refers to "Yajaka Brahmans". I cannot find a suitable link for this Brahmin community and wonder if there may be alternate names (JNB was writing > 100 years ago) or if it is one of those groups that really has not yet got an article. Any ideas? - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I found the following refs, which may be helpful as starting points

The Mahabharata [8] mentions them pages 37 and 77

A Sanskrit-English dictionary [9], p. 850: "Yajaka: a sacrificer, one who offers sacrifices or obligations for or to". First published by Oxford University Press, 1899, several subsequent reprints in Delhi, most recent 2005, author: By Sir Monier Monier-Williams.

Indian witchcraft [10]: p. 14: "Buddhist and Jaina texts justifiably state that secular Brahmanism, during the advent of those religions, composed of spells, charms, incantations, exorcism, witchcraft, occultism, sooth-sayings and so on. They rightly referred to the Atharva-veda as the Brahmanical origin of popular occultism which the high-priests (purohita) and Yajaka classes of Brahmanas amply utilised." Publishers Abhinav Publications, New Delhi, 1981

I hope this helps.JanetteDoe (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So they are just Brahmins who performed Yajna & is not some special caste as such. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Some Wikipedian in Chennai?

I'm trying to figure out what happened after 1915 to E. W. Middlemast (recent DYK), Professor of Mathematics (1910–) and Principal (1915) of Presidency College, Chennai. He seems to have vanished off the face of the earth. Could some Wikipedian in Chennai call the College (preferably someone in the History department) and ask them if they have any information, especially something that can be cited? (Please also see Talk:E. W. Middlemast for some more info.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I will have a word with St John's, Cambridge. All Cambridge University colleges produce journals for their members and they usually contain obituaries etc. That might be a route into the lost years. - Sitush (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I found:

"Journal - Indian Mathematical Society" from 1916 (snippet view), looks like minutes of meeting mention: "Middlemast, being unavoidably absent from India" [11].

Also, from 1949 [12], snippet again saying "EW Middlemast, a Cambridge Wrangler and the third President of the Society, was for long Professor of Mathematics in one of the premier colleges of this University and later its Principal. To crown this record of which any University ...". And that's exactly where it cuts off.

Hope this helps.JanetteDoe (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Great, Sitush! St John's also brought out The Eagle (run by subscription). The last issue on Google Books (full view) is Volume 29, 1908. Among the list of subscribers it has: "Middlemast, E. W. (Effective until 1910): Bishop's Gardens, Adyar, Madras." (See: St. John's College (University of Cambridge) (1908). The Eagle: a magazine supported by members of St. John's College. Printed by W. Metcalfe. Retrieved 4 October 2011.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. I also know a few maths bods there at other colleges, so hopefully this can be resolved. The Eagle sounds like a junior common room journal rather than a formal alumni publication to which I was referring, but either would be better than nothing. The JCR journals tended to have chequered publication histories. That for my college was known, on and off, as The Sex, being a (then) daring reference to the name by which the JCR was known - "The Sexcentenary Club", in honour of the then 600 years' of college existence. The tendency of students to challenge mores was alive and well back in the 1880s, it seems. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sitush. JanetteDoe: For the 1916 Journal, see full quote on the Talk: E. W. Middlemast page. For the 1949 Journal, the full quote says: " EW Middlemast, a Cambridge Wrangler and the third President of the Society, was for long Professor of Mathematics in one of the premier colleges of this University and later its Principal. To crown this record of which any University may well feel gratified, the President-elect of this Conference, my friend Dr. Narasinga Rao is another distinguished alumnus of this University."  :) So, it doesn't really help us much. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is this, though from 1906 and not directly includable. The book seems useful for the various caste articles though (assuming it isn't already being heavily used). --regentspark (comment) 23:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. Thurston was a biological determinist (see quote from Susan Bayly in Kurmi#Eighteenth_and_nineteenth_centuries right after the picture gallery). Middlemast also wrote an article on Hinduism in some collection somewhere (I remember coming across). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still hoping some Wikipedian from Chennai will call the Presidency College. I remain hopeful that Presidency College, Chennai will have some information about Middlemast. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"Journal of the Indian Mathematical Society". 10 (6). Indian Mathematical Society. December 1918. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) cited in Kanigel, Robert (1991). The Man Who Knew Infinity. Washington Square Press. p. 315. claims that E. W. Middlemast died during Ramanujan's absence from India. Considering the date of the particular issue in which the obituary is recorded, we might come to a conclusion that Middlemast might have died sometime in late 1918. But we can never be sure about it unless we have a copy of the journal with us. Kanigel, meanwhile, does not specify any date, not even the year-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 03:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I fear we won't receive a proper response if we call the Presidency College, Chennai.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 03:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see it all but he was listed in Alumni Cantabrigienses - see here. This could well be shown fully here, but note the "approximate" lifespan. I have not heard back from St John's yet. - Sitush (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Ahir/Yadav/Yadava

There has been a merge proposal for the Ahir, Yadav and Yadava articles. This could be quite significant. Discussion is at Talk:Yadava#Proposal_to_merge_articles_Yadav_.2C_Ahir_and_Yadava. - Sitush (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

Hello Wikipedians, i have been reading Wikipedia articles about Indian religions frequently of-late. It came to my notice that the article on Ayyavazhi is heavily corrupted with fake, sub-standard and fake sources. Notwithstanding that the article says Ayyavazhi followers declare themselves as "Hindus", the article makes many attempts to project it as a separate religion (an example source: "The following morning and evening dailies calls Ayyavazhi as a separate religion.." and lists some Tamil newspapers - source#5). In Template:Religion_topics, it is listed as a separate religion amongst Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. The article is heavily biased and many of the sources used are evangelist publications and tangential references to local Tamil dailies. The person/persons who have developed this article has shed a terrific amount of effort to fabricate this "fake" article.

If i had the time, inclination and the youth to reform the article, i would have done it myself. I just wanted to bring the above to the notice of active wikipedians. Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.170.105.241 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to light :-) We will surely look into it. However, I suggest you not to edit the article as you appear to have strong views on the subject.-Ravi_{My Tea Kadai} 00:47, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Kua dham bagar

I've proposed this article for deletion because it is completely unreferenced but so lacking in coherence and context that I cannot find any sources to verify the claims. Could someone check this out, perhaps using more appropriate search terms/spellings? I'm completely unfamiliar with the area. Voceditenore (talk) 11:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Pulikkottil Joseph Mar Dionysious I (Mar Thoma X )Thoma X  !!!!

In case anyone cares about Wikipedia naming conventions. For my own part I will move to somewhere I feel I can contribute usefully. Crusoe8181 (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Kunbi

I am trying to promote the Kunbi article article to a GA level article and all help in knocking these off the todo list will be very helpul:

1. Add information on Sickle cell disease
2. Add information on farmer suicides of the Kunbi community which is claimed to be disproportionately high
3. Adding an infobox would be helpful
4. Import this picture to Wikipedia: [13], search the web and add more pictures
5. Move non-Maharashtra Kunbi content to their own articles (Gujarat, Goa, Karnataka)
6. Expand/improve daughter articles:
   1. Khairlanji massacre
   2. Lonari
   3. Leva Patil
7. If some of the sources are reliable:
   1. Farquhar, J. N (2008), The Crown of Hinduism, READ BOOKS, ISBN 9781443723978, retrieved 5 October 2010
8. Provide sources for these people (that they are Kunbi) from the List of Kunbi people so they can be included in a summary format in the Kunbi article:
   1. Sharad Pawar
   2. Atul Gawande
   3. Sandeep Patil
   4. Rajnikanth
   5. Smita Patil
   6. Lalita Pawar

The same todo list is at the top of the talk page of the article. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You are trying, you say, to promote this article to GA level, but you have made your first edit on October 6. On that day and on October 9 you made a flurry of edits, some of which, as I can see at a glance, are inaccurately paraphrased, as in your description of M. N. Srinivas's notions of caste mobility. (I haven't made any edit to Kunbi yet, but perhaps I should say, I'm trying to promote it to FA, and ask for help.) The article has been wobbly for quite some time. It is nowhere near GA and unlikely to be so any time soon. Not sure what the point of this far-into-the-future intention is, unless it is to pre-empt or smother the debate that is taking place there (in common with many non-elite occupational caste articles). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Thakur Deshraj reliability as a source

Is the Hindi work on Jat history written by Thakur Deshraj reliable? It is frequently cited in articles here but GScholar cites are minimal (that might be a language issue) and even GBooks does not demonstrate much useful support. I am a bit concerned about his own neutrality after reading the article on him: he appears to have been heavily involved in advocacy. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hard to say. Since he was not an academic, we'd have to examine his works to figure this out. The question that needs to be answered is: what kind of sources (if any) does he use in his book Jat Itihas? Is there an english language translation available online (I couldn't find one)?--regentspark (comment) 14:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've not been able to find a translation either, although I also rather think that more than one author has written a book using that title. I presume that there are Hindi speakers who could assist? - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Few Strange Categories

Found some strange categories added in Kiran Bedi. Someone do the needful. I dont know how to do.

• Category:June 9 Birthday
• Category:Gemini Woman

-Animeshkulkarni (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated the first of those two for discussion. The second should follow. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

wp:OR on Homi J. Bhabha

the article Homi J. Bhabha (the architect of the Indian nuclear programme ) has also been changed by User:Ironboy11(now blocked After my complaints) with Original research. but his editings on these pages remain. Some one with expertise/interest can look to restore this and other India related articles that he has disrupted. Thanks--dBigXray (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC) field of the article = Indian nuclear program --dBigXray (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)