Talk:Pathare Prabhu (Kanchole)

[Untitled]
1) The article is not an orphan one since it is linked by 1) castesystem in india 2)pathare prabhu 3) jati. 2) The article is written by a person not concerned with any of the group and who is a student of systems in Mumbai. The article is based on the writings done on the subject and information gathered from the concerned persons of both the group. 3) The article presents the historical facts, based on the 2 above and it's not a personal reflection.


 * I understand your concerns, but the article very much comes across as arguing a case, that the Kanchole branch was unfairly discriminated against by the greater Pathare Prabhu community. The articles seem to argue or advance a point, not simply describe a situation. It has a large number of phrasings that do not meet WP: Tone; terms like "interestingly", "terribly", "unfair", etc. are subjective terms that are totally fine in conversation and in promotional writing, but do not belong in an encyclopedia article. The article should follow WP: Neutral point of view, in that, for example, both Kancholes and non-Kancholes could read it and say "the basic facts laid out here are correct". The article should not judge which side is right, but should cite established, published works as to the events that occurred.


 * In response to your points:
 * *The article is what Wiki calls a WP: Orphan, in that no article links into it. I see you tried to make two articles link to it, but all you did was jam the term "Pathare Prabhu (Kanchole)" into the article at the end. That does not at all make the article Caste better. What would make sense is to have a short passage added to the overall Pathare Prabhu article to explain their dispute with the Kanchole faction.
 * As noted above, it definitely seems like the article is written from a pro-Kanchole perspective to advance the case that the Kancholes are Pathares and have been treated unfairly.
 * Though you claim some sources, you apply no WP:Footnoting, so we can't tell what is clearly attested in published books, and what is your opinion. The reference "The articles in the magazines related to the community" is no help at all: what magazines? Which editions published when? A reader has zero idea where he can find verification for this. Similarly, "The information gathered from the members of both the groups of Pathare Prabhu community, through discussions and informal interviews." - this is WP:Original research. No matter how much awareness one has, until it is published in a reputable publication, it's not admissible material for Wiki. It might make great contributions to a future magazine or newspaper article, but we at Wiki can't cite it until it's published.


 * In addition, your article currently spends a huge first section describing the PPs in detail; this is unnecessary since it is redundant to the article Pathare Prabhu. The very beginning of your article should start specifically identifying what a PP Kanchole is. Please see WP:LEAD for how to do such an introduction. I'll draft a basic one first.


 * In order to remain on Wiki, your article is going to need proper sourcing and neutral tone. We're happy to help you with that, if you're willing to work with us to bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia standards. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

From Arealone 6th March 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arealone (talk • contribs) 09:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Kindly consider the following points so the article will be meaningful.

1)	The Kanchole is a small section of the Pathare Prabhus, so the brief information of the Pathare Prabhus is required to be given. 2)	The fortunate position of the Pathare Prabhus at the time of the division ( in the 18th century ) and their deteriorating conditions in the subsequent centuries is required to be mentioned to throw light on their mental set up in dealing with the Kancholes. 3)	The Kanchole is a section of the original caste hence the question does not arise whether either group considers other the Pathare Prabhus or not. Then each group considers self the Pathare Prabhus. 4)	Since the article is about the Kanchole, the mention of their present position in comparison with that of the larger group, in the face of hostilities shown by the larger group on the basis of their majority, is required to be highlighted. The mention about an unjustifiable ways of the larger group in treating the Kancholes is a worthwhile requirement of the article. 5)	The Peshwas had declared the Pathare Prabhus and not the Kancholes, the Shudras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arealone (talk • contribs) 09:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Greetings, per your points:
 * 1) While it is of course significant to note the larger PPs, an entire paragraph about them, particularly before even mentioning the Kanchole, is excessive. For comparison, note World War II. The introduction mentions, of course, that Germany was involved, but does not give a lengthy history of Germany going back to the Holy Roman Empire, Middle Ages, etc. Germany is only mentioned insomuch as it specifically relates to the war. Anyone wanting to know more can of course click the link Germany. I have left in some basic backstory, but the term Pathare Prabhu (Kanchole) should, by overwhelming Wiki standard, appear in the first few words of their article, not a paragraph later.
 * 2) I've retained note that the PPs were successful in Bombay in the 18th C. You have not provided a citation for this claim.
 * 3) Your additions state that the Kancholes were accused by the PP of being offspring of concubines and not "true" PPs.
 * 4) "Unjustifiable" is not a neutral term. I would imagine the greater PPs would consider their stance "justifiable". Wikipedia is not here to decide who is "right" in a given dispute, we are simply here to state the facts. When there are differences in claimed facts, we note both sides, and ideally the perspectives of uninvolved scholars. I strongly suggest you read the guideline WP:Neutral point of view as you article is consisting showing pro-Kanchole bias rather than neutrality.
 * 5) Understood, the phrasing before was unclear, so now I've fixed it per your statement. Still, however, you have not provided a footnote to prove this assertion.


 * Overall, the article is improving, but it still lacks proper referencing. You state that several articles/books were used as references, but give no indication what fact came from where. Optimally, statements/paragraphs should be footnoted so we can tell where a given claim is verified. For example, you state that these days the Kanchole are "property owners, high ranked politician, businessmen and skilled professionals.". Says who? If you have a citation, we know where we can look to see this is true, and we can see whether this claim is by a person we can expect to be neutral and published by an academic source, or whether it's simply by an everyday person and in the Kanchole Annual where we might expect a pro-Kanchole perspective. I strongly suggest you check out WP:Referencing for beginners, and endeavor to give clear citations for the statements made.


 * I hope the linked policies are of help to you as your understanding of Wikipedia grows. Please continue to post here with any questions or concerns regarding the article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

From Arealone, dated 9th March 2013 at 2.10 p.m.
 * 1) the references, citations have been inserted.
 * 2) the details of references have been given.
 * 3) the more and more references will be given during the course of time in order to improve the article.
 * 4) the informal interviwes with the persons of both the groups (Ref.4) are required to be considered, for in case of such a small caste and such small groups the documented proof for every fact is not possible.
 * 5) the links show the details when the page is put for the editing, but they do not show when the page is saved. Please help.
 * 6) please restore the rating section as many readers inquire for the same.


 * A few quick comments: if you're making a list of a numbered items (like your comments above), you can simply place a "#" sign at the start of a fresh line, and it will number your comments. That or a "*" will add a "bullet" to your line. Try this and you will see it makes a nice clean list, while your previous formatting did not display cleanly. Secondly, there's no need to type out your name and the date, simply type ~ at the end of any post you make in conversation (not in articles), and Wiki will automatically add your name and the date. Regarding your comments:


 * 1) This is a definite improvement, but your formatting is very hard to follow. You have noticed that on other Wikipedia articles there are little blue numbers that appear for footnotes? There is a very simple way to make those, and it's explained in WP:Referencing for beginners. I will fix the footnotes for you as an example, and I'm sure you'll agree it looks smoother and is easier on the reader.
 * 2) It is not necessary to write "by" and "published by" if you use a standard citation style like Chicago or MLA citations, I've fixed this for you.
 * 3) When you add new footnotes, please look at how I've coded the footnotes I've fixed and imitate that coding. I'm happy to help out, so long as you're steadily adding the new things you learn. Just I won't clean up the same things repeatedly, so please do check out WP:Referencing for beginners
 * 4) Nope, "informal interviews" are totally not admissible, again see WP:Original research. An encyclopedia is a tertiary reference, that is, a place to compile information already documented, not to announce new discoveries. As an example of why WP:OR is not allowed, what if I were to add "The Kancholes discovered Australia in 1492" and cited "Interview with Kanchole person"? All you could do to rebuff this is say "no it isn't", then I say "yes it's true I got it in an interview" and we just argue back and forth going nowhere. On the other hand, if you say "The Kanchole population in 1900 was 1,251" and you cite the Government of India Cultural Survey, 1902, then while I can say "I don't think that's accurate", I can't dispute that said book does indeed state that figure. Everything on Wikipedia is only as good as its sourcing and a "just trust me, I got this in interviews" is simply not solid sourcing. If you publish a paper in a University academic journal, using your research, then we can cite the journal since we can assume that a body of academics have looked over your research and concurred, but we can't accept unpublished personal statements.
 * 5) For links to display, type them exactly like so: Google . That is, a [, then the full link including http, then an empty space, the title you want to display, and then a ].
 * 6) I don't know why the rating section does or does not appear, that's not chosen by the editors but some function of the larger Wiki engine.


 * I hope all of this is of help. Please do observe the coding I've used so you can learn it for your uses, and please be sure to hit the "Preview" button to see if things are displaying right rather than make lots of small saves, and do include an "Edit Summary" (the box below your editing box) every time you save. This is definitely improving, but can be made much smoother. MatthewVanitas (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)