Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

... or panic madly and freak out?

Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

Manspreading

Caste promotion account[edit]

Hello, please look at this user he is editing majority particular caste related articles and is heavily using doubtful references. He is Rajput promoting account only. Check his contributions.

War article without any authentic source[edit]

Please once see this Battle of Mandan page. Not a single source looks credible. 2 out of 3 the sources are even low rated on Google books and one is by a caste historian.

References

1) Hooja, Rima (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rupa and company.

2) Sinh, Ranbir (2001). History of Shekhawats. p. 280.

3) Meharda, B.L. Territory, Polity, and Status- A Study of Shekhawats.

Here 1st source is from some Rupa company, other 2 are from caste writers not credible historians.

This whole article is a propoganda against reality. Please User:Sitush check it.

Are you all right?[edit]

You've not been around for a while. I hope you're doing fine! Bishonen | tålk 12:36, 30 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Me too. You are sorely missed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same concern, here! Hope you are fine. Ekdalian (talk) 14:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not too well again but will be back. Thanks for the concern. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see your message, finally! Take care of your health. I was also going through the comments in the section below; I must admit today, I have learnt a lot from you as far as caste articles are concerned. Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable publishing houses[edit]

A question for Sitush talk page stalkers. Sitush had created a list of unreliable Indian publishers, does anyone know where it can be found?--RegentsPark (comment) 17:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. I know that Concept Books was high up on that ladder. Probably Atlantic Publisher belongs to it as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which list you are looking for but I have User:Sitush/Indic publications of dubious merit, User:Sitush/CasteSources and User:Sitush/Common on my favourites (no I won't call it favorites (oh, I just did)) - Arjayay (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I was wondering about Popular Prakashan, specifically the source used here (obviously not a wikipedia mirror!). --RegentsPark (comment) 21:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link is to a scholarly book by R. Mukherjee, Dynamics of Rural Society in Bengal, published by Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1957. It should be reliable if slightly dated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks F&f. The "in-between castes" usage seemed odd to me and gave me pause but I guess it is kosher. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ramkrishna Mukherjee was a major quantitative sociologist of Bengal. A protege of sorts he was of P. C. Mahalanobis, the founder of ISI, Calcutta. He had collaborated Moni Mukherjee, a statistician of the income of Bengal, also at ISI, early. Moni Mohan Mukherjee does not seem to have a WP page; he should. I'll have to examine the in-between castes usage, which I haven't yet. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark: As we are on Sitush's talk page, I thought I'd mention that I happened upon a discussion on a "Raj-era" source on RS/N which I joined. I was duped somewhat as I didn't realize that some who were expressing their opinions on the source had in fact been locking horns on various Bengal-related caste pages such as the brahmin, the kayastha, the baidya, and likely more.

There is little available on these castes in the India-wide caste books such as Susan Bayly's Caste and society in India ..., Cambridge, 200?, I mean little that is separate from North India brahmins and kayastha. The editors are resorting to cherry-picking, usually from sources that make an oblique mention. Had Sitush (of old) been around, he's run his red pen through the lot of them.

In light of that RS/N discussion, I'd say that Ramkrishna Mukherjee's book might not be Raj-era, but it is dated and should be used on these pages with an abundance of caution. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kayastha etc stuff has always been a battleground, in my opinion. I would quite happily support a proposal that all contributors in India and all other people who profess an Indian identity are barred from editing caste articles/restricted to talk pages. Every one of them has a conflict of interest and far too often they are here to promote their particular opinion. - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not tongue-in-cheek, it is complicated by the fact of some of the great sociologists of caste also being Indian: G. S. Ghurye, M. N. Srinivas, Veena Das, Andre Beteille (though he is half-French, at least biologically), Dipankar Gupta, T. N. Madan, Iravati Karve, and no doubt others. ... But you are not talking about the sources, only the editors ... Frankly, don't know what the solution is. Caste in India won't go unless arranged marriages go (as these are overwhelmingly within caste and sub-caste). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, all caste-related articles could default to the 500-edit rule (forgot the acronym). We are way too liberal & it leads to burn-out of good editors. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, prepare for screams of anguish because one of my first tasks when I get going again will be to do global searches to remove all Raj-sourced statements. There will be no messing about this time: I have no intention of tagging with {{cn}}. - Sitush (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both. 500 min is good. The cn does not apply to caste in my view too. For the craziest assertion these days there is a source somewhere. It is usually DUE that is the problem and cn is useless there. I feel we could move the DUE discussions to the talk pages; even restrict the lead and infobox to widely used undergraduate texts published by scholarly publishers, quoting WP:TERTIARY. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sitush! Your help will be really appreciated. Is there some script that can detect years that we can run across caste pages? We can help. BTW, there is a battle going on between Baidya and Bengali Kayastha editors at this moment as to who is 2nd in the hierarchy of Bengal :-) Just check the talk page on Talk:Baidya. It gets frustrating after a while trying to resolve disputes. TB probably resigned from the same page due to the same issue. However, the caste pages I have found most battles are Rajput and Maratha related pages. It is impossible for a few good editors to keep up when 100s of disruptive editors edit across wikipedia. I really like the 500 edit rule for all caste articles. At least the editors will be conversant with sourcing by then. As a start, anonymous edits on all caste articles should not be allowed as it is easy for socks.LukeEmily (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LukeEmily: Ping either me, Vanamonde, Spiff, Bishonen or DougWeller with any caste page that needs semi or ec protecting. I agree that ec will be helpful but, of course, that would not help at Baidya.--RegentsPark (comment) 19:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I learnt a lot by seeing your posts.great to see you back.your contribution will be so helpful. Nobita456 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invite for comment[edit]

As you are so experienced in the caste-related article I am inviting you to give your opinion here before doing WP:RFC . thanks Nobita456 (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem unable to respond. Although the WP app shows the section, it refuses to commit my reply on the grounds that it doesn't exist (!). I don't understand why a separate section would be required. - Sitush (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Varna status section is already there where two sub section Colonial and Modern is present with the views regarding Varna.I want to create a new sub section Mediaeval and want to add the views.Thats it,thanks. Nobita456 (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Unless I have misunderstood things, I also do not see how starting an RFC would be helpful. You appear to be in a minority of one, you are fairly inexperienced & limited in your interests, and those several peoplewho differ from you do have considerable experience in the wider caste-related sphere. I can't stop you from raising an RFC but I do think that you would likely be wasting your time & that of everyone else, especially when taking into account also the long history of sockfarms etc at such articles - AGF is not a suicide pact. - Sitush (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the mediaeval varna section should not be there ? I am new to wikipedia doesn't mean I know less about Bengal's castes. I will use academic sources to create that section not my opinion. Nobita456 (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I have just again tried to post is

As far as I can see, the medieval status is mentioned - there were only two varnas commonly recognised then. This has parallels with other areas of India (eg no Kshatriya varna in various southern bits). I don't understand why a separate section would be required, and especially not if it would basically be a single sentence. We certainly should not be using medieval sources directly and, whilst you may have knowledge of Bengali castes, as a relatively new editor you will not have much experience in how Wikipedia works - not a criticism, merely a fact. - Sitush (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen the Baidya article which is one of the best caste articles of bengal? it clearly gives different views of purans and literatures(mediaeval era varna). I just also want to add them in kayatsha article also, that's it. and I will definitely not use Mediaeval sources but the sources by modern scholers.Nobita456 (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is not the place for this. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why I pinged you at the talk page of that article.please give your opinion there if you are interested. Nobita456 (talk) 12:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nobita456 :I am not interested. As I have said on a few occasions recently, I am using the app at the moment and it isn't great for tracking pings, reading convoluted discussions or checking diffs. - Sitush (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your time and comment. Nobita456 (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Baidya (& Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha) POV pushing - Socks & update[edit]

Hello Sitush, would like to keep you informed that during your long absence, lot of caste warriors have actively tried to push their POV stuff in the articles on Baidya and Chitraguptavanshi Kayastha articles; I have tried my best to protect these articles, and got tremendous support from RegentsPark and Bishonen. All such editors (mostly socks) were blocked. The current version of the article on Baidya was achieved through the combined efforts especially by TrangaBellam & LukeEmily. Regarding the latest sockpuppet investigation, please refer to the discussion [here]. Thanks! Ekdalian (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This situation was known as SNAFU in the 1940s. - Sitush (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you almost tried every admin to block me of sockin but couldn't.even in that sockpuppet investigation I reaming proved innocent. Nobita456 (talk) 11:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a part of the problem. There have been so many socks on caste articles that they have tainted things for newer editors. You can hardly blame experienced editors for a certain degree of cynicism. My advice to you would be to work collaboratively and across a wide range of articles, build a degree of respect & experience, and then revisit this particular bone of contention if you still feel strongly about it. There is no deadline. - Sitush (talk) 11:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great piece of advice for new editors indeed! Thanks. Ekdalian (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]