Talk:Daudpotra

Some Changes
Hi, @DaxServer. I wanted to ask something.

Can I add the notable people list, relevant categories, template, see also & native text for the tribe name in Daudpotra article? The editor who I have a history with now did not seem to have a problem with them. So would it be okay for me to add them? Also one more thing, the first reference in the ref list does not support the text, can you look into it to verify? And the 3rd reference in the ref list doesn't redirect to the page where it should support the text. Here's the reference from the same site which redirects to the exact text:

May I fix that? I am asking you since I want to tread lightly here & not cause any dispute. And yeah, Daudpota is the most common way of writing it (The r is pronounced but it's written as pota), can I add it next to Daudputra.

Do let me know, thanks. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sir Calculus I'm not a fan of native names (script) for articles related to Pakistan or India. In fact, they're pretty much banned for Indian ones. The problem is three-fold:
 * 1 potential for vandalism, or at least edit warring, over them and which can't be understood by English readers (this is the English version of Wikipedia)
 * 2 clutter, because there are numerous potential languages to be displayed
 * 3 utility - I doubt many people outside the country in question actually care as they'll stick to the Romanised version
 * Regarding notable people, again I'm not a fan. It's is usually just a boasting exercise. However, if you are going to list them then you must source each one, not rely on their name as verification of affiliation. Also, if they are living then the source must show that they have self-identified their affiliation. WP:RS and WP:BLP apply. - Sitush (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And yeah. These additional things make the article more fun & complete (just an opinion). I will fix them if a problem ever arises. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Will you pay me to do it if you don't? I pretty much guarantee that you will be long gone from here before I am. "Fun" is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saving money for something xD. Okay sir, maybe, maybe not. But as long as I'm here, I'll try contributing (without any controversies ofcourse) ;)
 * Okay, not fun, how about informative? They click the article, they might want to read about stuff related to Daudpotra. Like about the princely state perhaps or a tribe related to them or notable Daudpota. That kind of information. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I have explained my position regarding lists of notables. Others here may have different opinions.
 * The princely state is mentioned, though unsourced, via the Nawabs.
 * I have never understood how a tribe is "related" to another tribe. Aside from the obvious - we're all human & related to each other - what criteria are you proposing for "related" in this situation, and why is your proposed relationship criteria better than some other possible criteria? Examples include religion, geography, being a schism of another tribe. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush By related I mean like from the same tribe or atleast have a related history (war for eg). Like Daudpotra & Kalhora are both clans from the same tribe 'Abbasi'. And how Daudpotra lost their territory in Shikarpur to Kalhora. That kinda relation. Religion also plays a role. Both also claim lineage from the Egyptian Abbasids & they both share a common ancestor, Adam Shah. And I don't get why you have an issue with notables. I'm going to go ahead with notables. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Erm, the ancestor didn't exist. Or at least that's what I think our article says. You seem a bit vague, mixing up various potential rules of inclusion in a relationship - it could keep on expanding unless you set a rule of some sort.
 * If I were you, I would wait for consensus on the notables thing, and perhaps suggest a few here. There is, for example, no point in listing each Nawab separately. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean the egyptian guy? Yeah, that's probably a larp but I meant a recent ancestor. You didn't know the Kalhora & Daudpota are related? I can post their recent family tree if you want with a reference. (Not related to egyptian guy) Sir Calculus (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus If the family tree isn't in a reliable source, I'm not interested, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Rude. Why do you always assume stuff like that (I'm not gonna post raj stuff lol) Sir Calculus (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus So it is in a reliable source? - Sitush (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. No RAJ era stuff. No Sadik Ansari source either. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mean to add Nawabs from the princely state to notable list. I meant modern Daudpota. Like one who won the star of bravery in Pakistan Air Force & other notable intellectuals. Not princes or old stuff. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Well, that would be weird. The nawabs are likely to be the best known & most significant; everyone else mostly clan puffery. (There will likely be no criminals in your list, of course, because they're not good for image.) Cynicism aside, I still think you should wait and you definitely must abide by WP:BLP, WP:V and the spirit of WP:NLIST. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Yes, there will be no criminals. I'm just going to add two people for now. People who have contributed well to Daudpota name. I will abide by what you have mentioned. And regarding the wait, Dax doesn't seem to be interested & Sutyarashi.. well.. I don't want to bother him. It would be better to mend my ties with him. I just might achieve that by not bothering him. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus You need to wait days, not hours. You can't expect rapid responses here and see WP:DEADLINE. - Sitush (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes but wait for who though. Dax doesn't seem to be taking interest here. Also, how about I add it & if Sutyarashi finds an issue with it, I'll revert it myself. Would it be okay then? Sir Calculus (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus An additional point with lists of notables is that they become a time-sink, certainly in the case of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. There seems to be some weird tendency for people connected to those areas to want to add/delete names on the lists, and very frequently they do it incorrectly or even use them for self-promotion etc. Someone (historically, me) then has to spend hours running round fixing the things, and it is particularly unpleasant when the fixes are for BLP issues. You're probably too new here to realise it but they are a nightmare to maintain and just because they might exist at article X isn't a reason to introduce them at article Y. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush. Kindly, can we please keep India & Bangladesh out of this? Okay, I will keep it in mind that you are not a fan of them, but is there a restriction on putting them? I need a clear answer. And I'm sorry you have to spend hours fixing those things, I understand it can be a nightmare. I'm open to helping you on this. You can mention those kind of articles, I'll help out. It would also increase my experience. Thanks. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And can you check the first reference? In the current version of the article. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I can't see the first reference here. Google Books doesn't display the same content worldwide - WP:GBOOKS. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is the quote from p. 178: The old settlers are the Joya, Wattoo, Daudpota, Balouch, Syed and Pathan. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 16:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush I uploaded the screenshot, so you can take a full look: []
 * Also @DaxServer, the complete version reads "The major tribes in the area under study are the Arain Jat, Rajput and Gujjar. They all originate from the adjoining districts of East and West Punjab. The old settlers are the Joya, Wattoo, Daudpota, Balouch, Syed and Pathan."
 * So don't you think the 1st reference doesn't support the text? Perhaps we need a stronger reference? Sir Calculus (talk) 17:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus That quote seems to support the statement. Is your quibble that they are "old settlers" rather than indigenous? If so, it doesn't actually say that the Arain etc are indigenous + since Islam has only been around for a few centuries + there has been a lot If migratory activity in the northern Subcontinent, I think we might struggle to define indigenous communities there. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant it's not as strong as this:
 * Plus, I don't know of any Baluch that identify as Punjabis in South Punjab. They identify as Seraiki. So maybe it's the same case for Daudpotra? Because the Bahawalpur area's dialect is called Riasti, a dialect of the Seraiki language. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus have any source regarding that Balochs identity as Saraiki and not Punjabi? Sutyarashi (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It's common knowledge in Pakistan, but here you go anyways: [https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=VHgMAQAAMAAJ]], pg 31. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus "Common knowledge" won't suffice, sorry. I can't see any of that book, nor do I know anything about the author/publisher. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The author is the same guy from Kulachi tribe article. Naseer Dasti. Whose reference you consider reliable. Though it's onesided & has some faults & also depends on RAJ era source too(sheikh sadiq's book), but it's surprising how it's still up there but mine got removed xd. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I'm not aware of considering Dasti reliable. The name means nothing to me, offhand, and I can't see the book anyway. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, someone kept reverting it back on Kulachi. I assumed it was either you or sutyarashi. My bad. I will make sure to give you a preview of that Dasti page when we discuss on Kulachi. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Your personal knowledge counts for nothing, I'm afraid, and even more so when you are extrapolating from it (that is, speculating). - Sitush (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * So your experience on Wiki counts but my knowledge doesn't? Also, I didn't pull it out of thin air. It's common knowledge here, you can tag other Pakistani Punjabis here & even they will tell you about the Baloch. You are a native Brit, so I have more information about Pakistan than you. And even the source you are defending it still doesn't call Daudpota Punjabis xD. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus My experience of what happens in and with articles counts for something here. My experience of how to cook chips or drive a car, not at all. You are mixing things up. - Sitush (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I am talking about tribal knowledge not cars and other stuff. Anyways. The Daudpota speak Seraiki. And the source doesn't call them a Punjabi clan or doesn't imply a Punjabi origin either. So it would be more appropriate to keep them as Seraikis & Sindhis. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I don't know of any notable Punjabi Daudpota either. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus How many times must you be told that what you do or do not know in relation to a purported statement in an article is completely irrelevant without a reliable source to support it? - Sitush (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about this it's from 2004, uses the same data as the 1st reference which you are defending (which doesnt even state daudpota are punjabi clan) and also goes on to prove that Punjabi is minority in that district https://books.google.com.pk/books/content?id=Ex_aAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA8&img=1&pgis=1&dq=Daudpota+Saraiki&bul=1&sig=ACfU3U2_hFkzswGJYzvuwGpx-KOMtnhenQ&edge=0] Sir Calculus (talk) 21:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus as Sitush has already told you, you should stop making speculations. As for Saraiki, it is generally agreed that it is a dialect, or variety, of wider Western Punjabi. Ethnologue and ISO-603-3 both list it under Lahnda (see Punjabi dialects and languages). So there is not really any issue here. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi It's a separate language, a Saraiki would consider it racist what you have said. The official census of Pakistan puts them as a separate group. So what's the issue with you? And why would Saraikis live their life according to some Christopher Shackle? Sir Calculus (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is nothing racist in it mister, watch your tone. I have already provided links for this. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi The 'links' you provided don't call Daudpota a Punjabi clan, nor does it state they identify as Punjabi or assimilated into Punjabis. The official census writes Saraikis a separate group. Just letting you know because you don't live here. And maybe this will help you:
 * Now don't reject their identity. Because IT WILL be considered racism. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not rejecting anyone's identity. You should see Western Punjabi and Punjabi dialects and languages. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. So you accept your error here in the Daudpota article ref? Because it doesn't help you. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry but there is no error in this article, like two editors just have told you above. Did you go through the linked articles? They describe Saraiki as a variety of western Punjabi, not a language. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You are giving me Wiki articles & I just gave you a reliable reference from a book. And no, the other two editors did not tell me anything. Stop lying please. If you can tell me my references aren't good then I can also critically analyze your references. Your first reference doesn't connect them with Punjabis. So there is an error. I'm sorry but you have to remove it till you can find a strong & reliable reference. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * See here and please don't accuse anyone of lying randomly. Also, WP:ONUS is upon you to prove that reference you gave is reliable, which is irrelevant anyways. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You said two editors just told you above. And Sitush is incorrect in his statement. Because the text doesn't support it. Kindly find a reliable reference to prove it. I wouldn't have an objection then. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush I have provided a reference to support. He still has a weak reference which doesn't support the text. Kindly remove it. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the already cited reference is pretty strong, even if you don't want to accept it. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi Pretty strong? Define pretty strong. It doesn't even state they're assimilated into Punjabis, have Punjabi origin and doesn't even write they are a Punjabi clan. You're interpreting your own opinion there, the reference doesn't write anything to support your text. So kindly, check it again & provide a reliable reference to support it. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reference already mentions them to be old settlers in RYK District of Punjab, where Punjabi forms plurality (and mind you, Saraiki is a dialect of Punjabi as above articles describe it). And as Sitush as advised you, please see WP:TE. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The reference mentions them to be old settles in RYK. That part is from District census report of 1998. Which also states Saraikis form majority, but you didn't mention that part did you? And the official census of Pakistan has Seraikis as a separate group. And Saraiki is not a dialect of Punjabi. And Saraikis are an ethnic group, for which I've provided a very strong reference which you keep ignoring. And Riasti is a dialect of Saraiki. So again, kindly check your reference, ponder upon it, find a reliable one to support your text. Not your own personal interpretation, as that doesn't count. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Perhaps we should just say "is a Muslim clan" and drop all mention of Punjabi, Saraiki and Sindhi. Mainly because (a) it's not all that important and (b) I am becoming very tired of seeing this ridiculously repetitive conversation. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush I agree with you. About their origins we should just mention "Daudpota claim Abbasid origin, but it has been concluded that it's ficticious & they are likely of Jat or Rajput origin" (as supported by the ref)
 * I agree with you & have no objections. If @Sutyarashi has no objections either, then we should go ahead with the change. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually the version was like that before all this dispute. Anyways, I think it's ok to remove all these ethnic mentions. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, cool! Glad we agree. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus No, what goes on is relevant, and my experience of what goes on counts for something even if you disagree with it. We can get local consensus for/against, if needed. Please note that consensus is not a vote. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but when you wrote 'fan'. I assumed you were giving your personal opinion on the suggestions. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus It was my opinion, and I justified it with something a bit more solid that "fun". - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Re scripts, you can see it going on at Sindhis literally a few hours ago, involving . - Sitush (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I specifically meant about persons & tribes.
 * Here's something. The Sindhi Lohana "Jethwani" is pronounced very differently in native language. The 'J' is a velar implosive consonant, the 'Th' is an affricate breathy retroflex, the 'ani' is a nasal plain retroflex. So there's a major noticeable difference in pronunciation. That's why native scripts are necessary. It's adds more to the article. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus That is what IPA is for. I don't want to denigrate anyone's language but as a native speaker of English, Urdu etc are just squiggles on a screen & don't help me to pronounce things correctly. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That hurt. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I am trying to get through to you that, beautiful although calligraphy can be, it is not an aid to pronunciation for an international audience. You seem to think that it is and sometimes the truth hurts, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Pleaseee it's on so many tribe articles as well. Can't you allow a junior editor to do it onceee, it's not like it's against a policy or guideline or something.. If you find it cluttery you can remove it. I wouldn't dispute that. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Since I will remove it, unless you get consensus here, you would be wasting your time &, more importantly to me, mine. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Then remove it on all tribe articles. Don't be selective now. Sir Calculus (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus That isn't how it works. See WP:OSE and WP:CONSENSUS. - Sitush (talk) 12:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush This is a tribe article. Not about 'pokemon species'. The larger consensus disagrees with you. I'm sorry, that's how it works. And we haven't achieved a consensus here. It's you saying "I'm not a fan of this".
 * Also from what you sent, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections"
 * So kindly read. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus See WP:TE. I am fed up of this. - Sitush (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You didn't even address what I said. I'm not being "biased". I'm being neutral brother. Matter of fact, honestly, my experience with you has taught me more neutrality. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Also kindly check my message at Kulachi tribe discussion. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush you guys have not only violated WP:3O but WP:CS and WP:RS, via extreme reversions at this point this is a joke to be made of, @Sir Calculus already has provided resources for them, aren't you fed enough now? Starkex (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starkex No idea what you're referring to, sorry. For starters, I can't see a 3O request, let alone a violation of whatever the third opinion might have said. Not, I think, that a 3O-derived opinion is even binding. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starkexyes, where is the 3O request that has been violated? Doug Weller  talk 20:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Starkexyes, where is the 3O request that has been violated? Doug Weller  talk 20:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Gazetteer of West Pakistan
We say that the Gazetteer was published in 1968. Could this be a reprint? I ask because our quote includes "Daudpotra, to which tribe the ruling house at Bahawalpur belongs" ... but the family of the Nawabs of Bahawalpur were not rulers by 1968. - Sitush (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It's actually quite bizarre. The bulk was written between 1957-59 by a former Raj administrator called T. Sorley. Amendments were eventually made, almost by committee, and publication of the thing was further delayed by the Indo-Pakistan War, hence printed in 1968. Page 6 of the text is particularly concerning: it is the bit prior to Sorley's preface & is written by a Pakistani official. That page basically says Sorley made numerous errors of both omission and commission, was clearly biased, and various other charges. It says that although Sorley was knowledgeable and the thing is being printed, it really needs to be rewritten to fix the issues, not merely subjected to the occasional ammendments that had been done.
 * Given that it is well-known that the Raj people made a hash of identifying communities, and given that the point I mention above is obviously a mistake in the text, I'm not terribly confident that this source is OK for use on Wikipedia (not just this article but probably anywhere). - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush given that Gazetteer was written by a colonial official, and is most probably based upon RAJ era sources, it is clearly not reliable enough to be referenced. Also, it is not WP:3rd party too. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi Is it a a secondary source, based on two earlier editions. The first edition was published in the 1870s, the second in 1907 or thereabouts, IIRC. The publication history is given in the first 6 or so pages of the linked book. - Sitush (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush well...so should we treat it under WP:RAJ? Sutyarashi (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi I'd rather wait for another opinion. There has been a lot of back-and-forth regarding the statement for which it is used. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus you have seen Sitush's objection over the source, but still you haven't cleared it. Now, can you explain your revert on the article? This source is clearly unreliable, as it itself declare before preface. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi Okay, I'll address you & @Sitush. The source isn't unreliable, the preface doesn't say that.
 * A. It is published by the Government of Pakistan. And is a secondary source. If it was super unreliable, they wouldn't have published it in the first place. They considered it knowledgeable, hence published it.
 * B. It is reviewed by Sindh Adabi Board as well, they didn't remove the part related to Sindh tribes.
 * C. Multiple editors reviewed it, and after that it was published.
 * D. It is also cited in academic books. So your argument of "unreliable" is weak.
 * F. No other version than the 1968 version was published later. It is the only one used in academics.
 * Now about my revert on the article, if the source is as per WP:RS, yet you still reverted it, then respectfully, it is not my problem. It is yours. Sir Calculus (talk) 11:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus So why does it admit to being unreliable in its own text? It pretty much says "we print this as the best of a bad job". - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush You are taking it out of context. If the whole book was unreliable they wouldn't publish it. As written, the preface is clearly talking about Sorley's personal views. Not other things. The document is called "a very important document". The tribe section is also mentioned "of permanent interest and importance" in the preface.
 * Now the most important point, the part which we should be discussing, instead of going out of context. It's the Daudpotra part. It is based on Shaikh Sadiq's work which again is based on Tuhfatulkiram and local accounts. Not a Brit. So there is no "colonial bias" there. Sir Calculus (talk) 11:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus If a book admits to being unreliable then it is unreliable. We aren't able to read the minds of those who said so. Nothing to do with being British - I have absolutely no idea where you got that from because, rest assured, Pakistani people are equally as capable at writing rubbish. - Sitush (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush I'm not talking about a common brit, we're on about British Raj. Pakistanis didn't invade some country. WP:NPA
 * The book never admitted to being unreliable as whole. That specific part is talking about personal views of Sorley. Which have been removed "as far as possible", the tribes and Sindh related stuff was reviewed by Sindh Adabi Board as well and is based on Shaikh Sadiq, Tuhfatulkiram, Tarikh-i-Masumi. And to finish it all off, the book is cited in academic works as well. So it's not unreliable for the tribes. If it was the other editors and Sindh Adabi board would have removed that whole chapter. Again I repeat, the document is called "a very important document". The tribe section is also mentioned "of permanent interest and importance" in the preface. We're using it for tribes here. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus The book is based on previous Raj work but the issue is that the work exists even in the 1968 revision, which was commissioned by the *independent* govt of Pakistan after partition. As with many Indian govt sponsored publications, as late as the 1990s, even though it may have been reviewed by non-Raj people it is considered not reliable because it copy/pastes huge chunks from the Raj works (mainly due to lack of time but the effect is to perpetuate bad analysis etc). That they allowed it to be published while admitting it was problematic just means that the editorial oversight has failed. We should not use it, period, and I am not engaging further with you, here or anywhere else because you've been nothing but tendentious. I have an encyclopaedia to improve and going round in circles with you is wasting time. - Sitush (talk) Sitush (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Why is it used in academic works then? Care to explain that? It's reliable. You don't own Wikipedia. You have a problem with every source I post including modern academic ones. That talk at Kolachi page is an example of that. Let me remind you again, you do not own Wikipedia and cannot go against sources that are reliable academic works. Your experience on wikipedia doesn't mean you can go against WP:RS. And you continue to mass-delete Sindh related content. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus So cite the modern academic works instead of the dodgy source of Raj origin. This has been explained to you at least twice before. And, also for the umpteenth time, just please stop. I haven't got time to go round in circles with you & am fed up of you pinging even after I have asked you not to do so. Do it again & it will be another trip to ANI, I think, as it amounts to harassment. - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In Kolachi I CITED the modern source. Which you removed. Sir Calculus (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And this gazetteer we're talking about is cited in modern works as well, like this: Sir Calculus (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

A couple of observations about historic sources. Historians and literary scholars frequently refer back to historic publications in their work. They may quote parts of them, or use them in their work; heck, the whole thing might be reprinted. (Side note - my partner is an academic historian of the 17th century. She often works with original C17 manuscripts, but she also works with (and owns lots of copies of) 19th-century printed editions of the original manuscripts.) That isn't done because modern historians think the old sources are inherently reliable, but so that they are more accessible so that more scholars can use them. Whatever the reason, an historic source being cited or reproduced in a modern source does not make the historic sources itself reliable for our purposes. What the scholars say about the sources, be that in a preface, or in foot notes, or whatever - the conclusions they draw from them are the kind of thing we should be using. - please can I implore you once again no just to assume good faith, but also as a great deal of experience and competence, in Sitush? I haven't looked in detail at the specifics here, but I think it very probable that Sitush is correct about these sources, and you would do well to listen carefully to what they say and try to learn from it. You are still very new here, you are learning to ropes but you are trying people's patience along the way. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  15:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @Girth Summit Okay, I'll avoid interacting with Sitush. I just really really need your opinion on this (not related to the current gazetteer). This specific source: . Is this a reliable source? You can view the full pdf here:
 * Please give your thoughts. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll, I'm not an expert in that topic area, so I can't speak with confidence. The author appears to be a notable academic, which is a plus point. I don't recognise the publisher, but it sounds like it might be a good source. Part of identifying reliable sources is considering what content they're being used to support. Allana was a linguist - is the content you're looking to add concerned with linguistics? Girth Summit  (blether)  16:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit The publisher is Institute of Sindhology, University of Sindh. The specific content I'm asking about is this (pg 231):
 * If there are any doubts then you may check my previous mention to you in which I've linked the pdf of the book. You can view the publisher's note there as well. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood - when I said 'content', I meant what assertion in a Wikipedia article would you be looking to support with that source? A source can be reliable for some stuff, but not for other stuff. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:07, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit A tribe. Kulachi to be specific. I want to keep the article neutral. If not the current article then at least a separate one recognizing them, with other references as well, not just this one. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit lost here - 'a tribe' is a noun, not an assertion. The book certainly does look rather strangely written - I skimmed through that chapter, and my impression is that it's big on speculation and opinion. I am neither a linguist nor an ethnographer, so my personal review counts for nothing. RSN might be the way to go, but you definitely need to mention the stuff you want to add to an article based on this book, not just give a link to the book itself. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We have been through this before. It is a poorly edited book, full of typos etc and he seems to offer a fringe view of "Sindhi races". He is citing himself at note 15, and he isn't an ethnographer etc. If one person says something but ten say something else (for example), we aren't going to give much weight to the sole person. It might help to see the work he is self-citing because that might explain the idiosyncrasy. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to add: I sent another book published by the same Institute to WP:RSN 10 or so hours ago. That one isn't great, either. - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * They aren't saying or changing the origin of a certain tribe. They are saying that this tribe also exists. Sanjrani is a great example here which exists in Mazaris, Sammat Jats, MirJats, Jats, Laghari, Burira, Khosa Matwaals, Mosiani Brahvis, Noohani, Rahimoons from Tharparkar and to make it more complex a son of Jatoi was called Sanjr, whose children are called Sanjrani and are the 48th clan of Jatois. So even in Baloch & Brahvi, they are found in different tribes. The book you consider unreliable is based on "Tuhfatulkiram" another manuscript. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus He is saying that the tribe is a Sindhi tribe. I am fed up of explaining that it is widely accepted in actually reliable sources that the Kulachi tribe origins are Balochi. People move all over the world, including Kulachis into Sindh, but it doesn't change their origin - if a Pakistani moves to London, they may become a Londoner but their origin remains Pakistani. You have got to drop this: it is well into WP:IDHT territory & you're demonstrating a huge amount of tendentiousness, possibly also incompetence. I realise that you are new here but if you aren't going to listen then things will end badly. What you are doing now us relitigating something in the hope of getting a different outcome, and it isn't working. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Things will end badly" Please avoid threats. The Sindhi tribe he is talking about is the one that speaks Sindhi and claim Samaat origins. He isn't cancelling all the Baloch tribes. The sources you are using in that tribe article are based on a "dictionary". And the other one is based on a Raj era source. But since it is secondary. You are accepting it. And I don't have a problem with that. I just want the article to be neutral. If you don't want that, then at least let me create another article with more than enough refs which recognizes the existence of Sindhi Kolachis. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus It wasn't a threat but rather the voice of experience.
 * I know that, as with some Indian castes, a community name can be adopted by more than one community. When that happens, we create separate articles because they will have different histories, customs, languages etc. But you haven't even reliably sourced that. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the clarification. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. The thesis of the book is (p. 299):
 * "Sindhi language is not an off shoot of any foreign language but it is the original tongue of the people of Indus Valley. It has retained its roots in the civilization of Indus Valley, and has given birth to other languages, not only of the north-western languages of the sub-continent, . but has also penetrated the southern side of India"


 * This is such an extraordinary WP:REDFLAG/WP:FRINGE claim that it should not be cited anywhere on wikipedia unless it has been published in peer-reviewed journals and cited (positively or at least critically) by other scholars. Makes the reliability of this book and any other publication of Institute of Sindhology very suspect. I would recommend approaching WP:RSN if this needs to be discussed any further. Abecedare (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you scroll above and see all the detailed comparisons, in depth studies & expert opinions in that book? Taking one thing out of context is harmful. And Institute of Sindhology is highly reputed and is cited in International works as well. Banning every book of the institution from being cited would do more harm than good. Especially to Sindh related articles. I don't mean tribes but other things. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus If something is deemed unreliable here, it is unreliable. It's nothing to do with hindering article development etc, which sounds to me like another thinly veiled suggestion of racism. - Sitush (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush YES BUT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BANNING AN ENTIRE INSTITUTION THATS LITERALLY BASED ON SINDHOLOGY RESEARCH. I'm not suggesting any racism. And that's despite your very specific mass-deletion of articles related to a very specific people and suggesting complete restriction of a certain institute based in a specific region. You are escalating it again. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I haven't suggested anything about the IoS except that at least two of their publications seem very poor to me. I also haven't proposed any Sindhi article for deletion. - Sitush (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Forgive me for being vague. Correction: Mass-deletion of content in articles related to a specific region, related to a certain people. And let it be clear I'm not suggesting any racism. It was just very strange to me that the day I mentioned I'm from the Kalhora tribe was the day the mass deletion on Kalhora & articles related to them started. Combine that with all the "Sindhi" bans recently, it made me feel a bit "disturbed". Sir Calculus (talk) 19:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I am using the app, as you know. If I look at an article, it shows some related articles at the bottom of the page. That's how I move from one to another, if not by clicking on links within the article. It is literally how Tim Berners-Lee expected the web to work. The fact that I am heavily editing Sindhi stuff begins with that and ends with so much of the stuff being absolutely dreadful & needing work. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush So the Kalhora related articles randomly popped up at the bottom of your app right on the day I mentioned my tribe was Kalhoro? That's odd. Sir Calculus (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I have edited them over the years - check the histories. In the nicest possible sense, I couldn't care less who you are: it has no bearing on what I do here. - Sitush (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush You may have done so in 2017, but randomly doing it years later, on the day I mention it as my tribe. Weird. Anyways, kindly also do "contribute" to articles not related to Sindh as well. Seen some RAJ stuff on other articles but they haven't been touched by anyone. They also need work. Sir Calculus (talk) 19:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I have edited other articles, if you check my history over the last week or two. I'm scarcely a WP:SPA and you probably need to back off with the accusations and insinuations. A read of WP:OSE might be useful, too. - Sitush (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Good to know. I'm not accusing anything. Anyways, I think it's best we both avoid talking to each other. I've noticed it results in endless time wasting arguments. Arguments aside, I still respect you and your contributions. Let it be known. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Do you understand how a watchlist works? Doug Weller  talk 20:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller What about it? Sir Calculus (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus again, do you understand how they work? Or what they are used for? Note I’m about to go offline. Doug Weller  talk 21:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just get to the point. Say what you want to say. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus Rude much? As you won't answer my question for some weird reason my guess is you might not know what a WP:Watchlist is. Almost all experienced editors use them to monitor changes in articles, or indeed any pages, that they want to keep track of. That way I am alerted when an article I last edited is changed, no matter how long ago. Comments of yours such as "So the Kalhora related articles randomly popped up at the bottom of your app right on the day I mentioned my tribe was Kalhoro? That's odd." are not only in bad faith but show you don't know about watchlists, or at least how they work. Doug Weller  talk 07:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller Nothing rude about it. I just prefer a straight forward statement. I edited the article a long time ago. He could have reverted the edits if he was "monitoring them". But the timing of this was very odd. Stop accusing me of bad faith. You are only escalating it further by making such accusations. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * “Timing of this is very odd” isn’t showing bad faith? Doug Weller  talk 18:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller I just mentioned something that happened.. which you can verify. I haven't accused him of anything. Just mentioned it was "strange". Sir Calculus (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you didn’t just mention when something happened, you called it odd and now weird. That’s not showing good faith and it appears that you don’t understand the concept. Doug Weller  talk 18:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller He has called me stupid before too. I'm sorry for calling what happened "odd". Also, can you please stop escalating this further? Sir Calculus (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I too am not suggesting "banning every book of the institution from being cited". I am only saying that we approach them with caution and cite them iff other (independent) scholars in the area have reviewed/cited them, i.e. we let other scholars assess them first before citing them in a tertiary source like wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare Thanks for the clarification. Sir Calculus (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sir Calculus - please understand that this is entirely normal, we're none of us singling out Singhologists for unusually harsh treatments. Scholarly sources are the best kind of source to use, but they often disagree with each other. Our aim is always to represent the mainstream consensus in our articles; where no such consensus exists, we represent different opinions, without expressing a view as to which is correct. I have been a party to similar such discussions over articles which I have written concerning 17th-century British history. When considering what our articles should say, we might review a dozen or more scholarly works, evaluate what the authors are saying in each of them, look at reviews of each of the works to see how well-received they were, and hopefully we will eventually agree on a wording that satisfies most of the people in the discussion (in other words, a consensus position). We rely on scholarly opinions for what we write, but any individual scholar can take a position which is not accepted by other scholars in the field. Please don't lose your cool if you find a scholarly source that says one thing, and then other editors still disagree with you - just ask them which sources disagree, and go and read those sources for yourself. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  20:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit Thank you for giving a well-written response. I understand your concern. Btw, I really really respect how you explain things well and are polite. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Abecedare Having done a bit of preliminary digging - JSTOR, Brill etc - it looks like the IoS and the language issue are intertwined with promotion of Sindhi nationalism, and that said nationalism can be traced back at least to Partition even though the 1972 language riots were a political turning point. Also, that the change of name of the IoS, so that it used the Sindhology neologism, was an attempt to get studies of Sindh on a par with established academic fields such as Egyptology. Put in this context, red flag claims such as you highlight might make more sense: the invention of tradition etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Present something concrete. Mere speculation is problematic. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush, so should we take issue regarding IoS to WP:RSN? As Abecedere has shown, it's clearly not reliable enough to be cited on Wikipedia. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi Your speculations don't make it unreliable. You need a published reliable source to prove that the institution must be avoided on Wikipedia. If it's unreliable its publications wouldn't have been cited in academics. Kindly present something concrete to support your claims. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Abecedare has already shown above how IoS makes up things for which there is no evidence. There is no speculation regarding that it is unsuitable for citation. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sutyarashi They haven't shown a thing to support your current reverts. Also, they haven't posted a reliable reference to support the whole institution must be avoided. Wikipedia doesn't work on speculation or accusations. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If Sir Calculus wants it to be used, they will have to take it to RSN. They seem to be a bit confused: Abecedare said that we'd probably need positive peer reviews for any IoS publication before we accept that publication as reliable. I tend to agree with that - there is something "off" about the ones I have seen. Given the clear error in the Gazetteer which I pointed out, I think that, too, would be a job for RSN.
 * While I have been dragged back here: Sir Calculus, you have been asking for more admin involvement but seem not to like it when some admins do become involved (in a non-admin capacity) - Doug Weller and Abecedare are both admins, so too is RegentsPark in another thread and, as you know, Girth Summit. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, neither Abecedare nor I have suggested a blanket ban on IoS stuff. We feel that the IoS books may need to be judged individually on their merits, and that will need high-quality reviews for each of them. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush I agree with Girth Summit. Regarding IoS, you are on about two books. Girth never said anything about the whole institution. Please provide a reliable proper concrete reference to support your claims of IoS being unreliable as a whole. Wikipedia doesn't work on speculations fortunately. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't made a claim that IoS is unreliable as a whole. It needs caution, that's all. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Will see RSN. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus just so we're clear about this: reviews in newspapers aren't going to be sufficient and non-English reviews are likely to be awkward. We're really in the realms of reviews published in academic journals by peers with relevant expertise. Also, if we got to a point where, say, five or ten IoS publications were deemed unreliable then there is a risk of their entire range being deemed so by default. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Sure. I'll just ask whether "this source" is reliable or not in RSN. In detail of course. And in the meantime, try to find a reliable source supporting the claim that IoS is unreliable. It would really help Wikipedia. Thanks for your contributions. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sir Calculus I don't need to find a source saying IoS is unreliable. I have better things to do with my time. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sitush Well, you seem to think it is unreliable. And regarding better things to do with your time. Sure. You may. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * (07:15, 26 July 2023 comment): If there is anything sourceable and due, that may be worth adding to the Institute of Sindhology article. But, fwiw, that is my impression too. Here for example is what a peer-reviewed article says about the Sindhi-IVC theories (to be clear this is not in response to the Allana book; I searched but that doesn't seem to have attracted any scholarly attention):
 * "Although some language would certainly have been in vogue in Sindh ever since the dawn of civilization, the claim of such hoary antiquity for present-day Sindhi smacks of undue dogmatism and linguistic fanaticism. We must be sporting enough to admit that modern Sindhi, like for other NIAs, attained the status of an independent language for wide-spread use in its more-or-less present day form somewhere around the 10th century."
 * which is consistent with both wikipedia's Sindhi language article and EB's (signed) articles on Sindhi language and Sindhi literature.
 * the burden would be on you to show that any content you are proposing to cite to an IoS publication is reliably sourced and due (see WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS and WP:REDFLAG for the relevant wikipedia guidelines). Based on what I have seen so far, this would be best done on a case-by-case basis, on the particular article's talkpage or at WP:RSN rather than as a blanket ban/ok for all the institute's publications.
 * As far as this article is concerned, I am only arguing that the particular book by Allana is an unacceptable source; is anyone still arguing for its usability? If not the rest of the discussion, which doesn't concern this page, can perhaps be continued at a more appropriate fora. Abecedare (talk) 18:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Would it be appropriate if I ping you at the relevant talk page of an article? For other sources from this institution. @Abecedare Sir Calculus (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure but note that this is not my primary area of interest. So I may or may not weigh in depending upon how much time I can devote at the moment. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)