User:LukeEmily/sandbox/Shinjoya

The pattern I have noticed in Shinjoya is that once his removals are reverted, he waits and tries again. Secondly, he removes well sourced content under the pretext of WP:UNDUE or makes a comment on the talk page and writes "removing as per discussion on talk page" even though others disagree. He has a tendency to call some western sources as "hoax". He even questions the veracity of respected sources like Dr.Gordon who has been supported and quoted by numerous other sources. The other way he has removed sourced material is to put a after a source and then wiping out the source and the long standing content after a few days giving the excuse of "quote not available".

1. : Blanking out a 1992 University of California source and a 2014 Oxford University source that discusses alcoholism in the Rajput community. He could have moved it to another parallel section but he chose to blank out the hard work of other editors. He has tried to remove this couple of years back and did it again in 2021.

2. Removal of a sentence mentioning Shudra from the start of the section as well as other edits(cluster of castes - see 3) that were explained to him by admin.

3.Persistantly try removing "Rajput cluster of castes" removal despite being reverted and explained the issue by admin. Hoping to push his POV for several years without involving original admin.

Talk:Rajput/Archive_25, administrator utcursch has patiently explained Shinjoya why his edits that removed "cluster of castes" were reverted.

year 2017 Shinjoya's edit war with admin on the same issue:  

year 2018 Shinjoya's same edits again - he removed cluster of castes version:  reverted by admin here

He tried the same edit in 2021 without waiting for input from others, especially the involved admin who reverted him many times and is still active. 

I believe he will continue trying until someone does not object - is it WP:STONEWALL?

On the Maratha page, he has been trying to divorce them from their well sourced Kunbi origin.

4. Removal of long standing content supported by several sources. Wiping out of a section supported by sources. 

5.Another removal of another well sourced section.  Shinjoya also called the content well cited by David Ludlen a "hoax" on the talk page.

5. Removal of Susan Bayly source and her statement about Bhonsale's Kunbi origin two times.  ]

6. Persistent effort to remove Kunbi from lede.

A large number of sources mention Kunbi - see [Maratha_(caste)#Origin]. a. First he claims there is no quotation and then removes the content in 6 days. First added quotation needed tag and then removes it a few days later.. Note that the quotations are available.

b.Heba rightly reverts all removals explaining on the talk page she is concerned that so much content has been deleted. She also gives the quote from Gordon(already on the main page) that Shinjoya falsely claimed to be "missing". c.Now, Shinjoya changes his strategy by doubting the scholarship of Stewart_N._Gordon, a respected academic. He argues against the content of the book although it is well supported by other scholars on the same page.  and goes ahead and reverts to his version later by saying "it will be a puzzle etc.".

7. He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page. Would the Indian Government separate soldiers by caste in the 21st century? Are those soldiers really of the Maratha caste to be added on a caste page?

8. Attempts to date back the origin of the Maratha caste by misrepresenting sources:

Gordon[ ] and others like Eraly[ ], etc have clarified that the word Maratha before 1600 simply meant resident of Maharashtra.

 But in Military System of the Marathas, Sunrendra Nath Sen(a Raj era source) also clarifies on page 12 " It is also necessary to point out that in the following pages the w'ord Maratha has not been (except when otherwise indicated) used in the caste sense."

And here he is misrepresenting sources to show on the Maratha caste page that the word 'Marathe' is even mentioned in inscriptions by quoting Novetzke. . Here a reader will get the feeling that the Maratha caste existed as shown in old inscriptions even as early as 1311. American scholar Christian Lee Novetzke is completely misrepresented by not giving complete context by Shinjoya in. But Dr.Noverzke himself has clarified in the continuing sentence that the Marathe term refers to neither the Maratha caste nor Maharashtra. The complete quote is here ''The first attestation of the term marathe as a self-designation by the Yadavas occurs in an inscription, discussed in chapter 2, attributed to the reign of Ramachandra or Singhana III, the last inscription of the Yadavas offering a gift to the pandharpur temple,dated to 1311 CE. The word does not mean Maharashtra, which occurs much earlier as a name for the region; and the word does not indicate the maratha caste/jati either. Instead the word means belonging to Maharashtra as Feldhaus and Tulpule gloss the word but it implies the confluence of language, religion, culture and place, as we will see below.''. As you can see the above is clear evidence to misrepresent a source to promote the Maratha caste when the source itself is explicit in clarifying that the word is not connected to the caste at all!LukeEmily (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)