User:LukeEmily/sandbox/prepareresponsetochess

''The fifth diff you mentioned at [95] appears to be based on a request from an IP editor. He replied to that, said he agreed, waited a while for anyone else to comment, and then removed the section. Then you reverted and a discussion was had on the talk page. Shinjoya appeared to have a valid argument; they examined several reliable sources and only one source mentioned the Maratha was responsible for these riots. [96] In cases as hotly contested as caste-based riots asking for more than one reliable source is likely a good idea. And if this detail is so important that the Maratha was responsible, why don't more sources discuss it?''

RESPONSE (LE): It is not a valid agreement because there were *multiple existing* sources that were present that mentioned the caste by name. Second, there is no rule that multiple sources are needed for a controversial topic. He called those sources a hoax because he could not find quotes although he admitted that one source where the previous editors had given quotes was valid. Using this logic, I can delete 90% edits on wikipedia. To prevent WP:NPOV, we can always attribute a single opinion to a source - we don't need to delete a section that has 4 sources listed by calling them a hoax. For example, he could have simply moved the section to another area and said according to "Marovitz" Even if it had (hypothetically) only one source, as long as a source is WP:RS and Claude Marovitz (http://humanityjournal.org/author/claude-markovits/ or http://ceias.ehess.fr/index.php?3640) certain is a WP:RS, I do not see a problem. I give you the example of Baidya, where a single (but reliable) is used to cite the text Vaidyas as "one of the highest of the Shudra castes", who possessed "one of the Vedas", the Ayurveda. Is everyone starts demanding two or more WP:RS citations for every controversial topic, will it work? What if the Bengali Baidyas say that this is only one source and hence Shudra is undue? In addition, none of the sources contradicted Marovitz i.e. none of them said they were NOT maratha. Many (if not most) books on Shivaji will not mention the word Shudra for political or practical reasons. Perhaps their focus is on some issues unrelated to caste - like his political acumen- as an example. That does not mean Shudra cannot be added. Having said that, please allow me to reiterate that multiple existing sources at the time of his deletion did mention Maratha. I added an extra source because it mentioned that Brahmins were also targets of attacks in the same riots(not just Marwaris).

''For your fourth diff [97], I think it's debatable whether or not including that particular incident is WP:UNDUE. There have likely been thousands of inter-caste incidents in the Indian subcontinent's history. The sources that covered the incident were all news sources from the same few days in 2017 when the incident occured, except for the EPW source which is claimed to be from 2015 which is logically impossible given the event happened in 2017. I think there's a legitimate NOTNEWS argument to be made here.''

RESPONSE (LE): I am not too familiar with such politics and such news but it did look sourced and it is also cited in Economic and Political weekly. I think that 2015 is a typo. But I do not know much about this except that it did look sourced from multiple sources. There is a procedure to argue removal. I cannot put some comment on the talk page one day and remove a ton of sourced content the next day if no one replies in 24 hrs. Yes, it can be argued it is news and could be removed by using an RFC.

''The sixth diff you've provided [98] about the claim that Bhonsles originated from the Kanbi and Marathas is also interesting. Shinjoya removed the sentence because "the source fails to give any conclusion about the original caste of clan". Reading the excerpt of the source provided, the source says that "the Bhonsles are thought to have originated among the large, amorphous populations of non-Muslim Deccani tiller-plainsmen who had come to be known by the names Kanbi and Maratha" (emphasis mine). The source then goes on to explain that they weren't "formally castelike in the modern sense". The sources doesn't seem to make a firm conclusion here that the Bhonsles originated from these specific castes, rather that the Bhonsles originated from the group of people that later turned into those castes. While Shinjoya should have rephrased, he raises an interesting point that was not addressed by the people that reverted him. It's also interesting that the mass reversion edit summaries state that Shinjoya should discuss their edits on the talk page prior to making them. [99] Shinjoya actually brought up the specific Bhonsle issue on the talk page after the reversion [100] but you didn't bother to address that, instead saying "I am very busy right now but will get more involved from next month."''

RESPONSE( LE): I have no issue with rephrasing something as long as it does not misrepresent source. Interestingly, all such issues come up only for contents that are not flattering. I think the deletion of such a high quality source like Susan Bayly is unwarranted as admin Utcursh has also pointed out on another page.

''For your 7th issue, the quotation needed tag was validly placed. There was no quote from the source in question included in the reference. [101] You claim that quotations are available, so why not include one to address the issue? You also say Heba provided the quote that Shinjoya said was missing. [102] Actually looking at the diffs, Shinjoya was requesting a quote from the Jaffrelot source (the only one in the lede sentence at the time). The quote Heba provided is from a different source written by Stewart Gordon that wasn't inline at in the lede sentence at the time Shinjoya requested the quote. [103] Now, cutting out the lede is a stupid way to resolve this. But there is a valid point here; the Gordon source should have been referenced in the lede sentence. It's weird to call this POV-pushing and rather misleading to say that the quote was included.''

RESPONSE: I think you are misunderstanding the quote and context. First, the quotation was *already* on the main page in the lede itself when he deleted the sentence. Heba just copied it from there to the talk page unless I am mistaken. But the quote existed on the ppage and still exists. In fact, it existed even after he deleted the text. I am willing to call this an honest mistake on his part but it is not isolated. The pattern is obvious. The Jaffrelot source is irrelevant there. Not sure why it was there in the first place. But the quote that was removed was present in Gordon's source, irrespective of whether Jaffrelot had the quote or not.

''Also on the seventh issue, you appear to be misconstruing the point Shinjoya was making. Shinjoya wasn't saying that Gordon was unreliable nor did Shinjoya argue against the content of the book. Shinjoya was making the argument that a) the Gordon book is the only citation for the lede sentence's claims and the article gave it UNDUE weight and b) the Gordon source says that the Maratha is a "category of caste".[104] Note the quotation explicitly calls the Maratha a "category of caste". The source doesn't claim that the different groups of people have been amalgamated into a single caste known as the "Maratha". This looks like a legitimate content dispute, not POV-pushing. I would say that you might actually be the person doing original research here, given that you continued to claim that "Gordon is explaining that the Maratha caste is formed from an amalgamation of peasant castes that existed in Shivaji's time." when that doesn't actually appear to be supported by the source. I'll also note that Heba actually accused Shinjoya of vandalism during this discussion because Shinjoya didn't use the template "need quotation to verify", despite Shinjoya clearly using that template and waiting before making their change. [105]''

RESPONSE(LE): I agree that Vandalism is not the right word to use. But I feel she used it based on the other pattern of edits she observed by Shinjoya. Actually the text, it is supported not only by Gordon but also multiple sources. Please see the quotes from sources in 1)Lede section 2)origin section of Maratha and the 3)Varna section and you will see the quotes by multiple scholars and academics as well as Govt of India, Maratha organizations, the Supreme court etc. The Lede section was only reflecting those words. Hypothetically, even if the Gordon source was unavailable, the lede would still be correct based on the other sources(maybe one or two names of castes could be deleted). Also, when Gordon says "category of caste", he is referring to the second category in which the way Maratha is used (caste sense). The first category is simply people of Maharashtra. Here he says that he is discussing the caste and its formation. Maratha is also used by older historians to denote all Maharashtrians. What Gordon is saying is that these  castes Kunbi, dhangar etc. had families who participated in battle and after change in dress and customs and employing genealogists amalgamated into the Maratha caste. He explains this over two pages. This is quite well known by academics (even if we did not have Gordon). There are many other sources that say the same and it is not at all fringe a fringe opinion.

''On the eight issue you didn't provide a diff, so I'll do so instead. Shinjoja added multiple images to the article [106], including a drawing of a single man with a spear from 1813 which at the time was named File:Maratha_Soldier.jpg. This seemed like an honest mistake on his part (which he fixed immediately once you brought it up that it might not have been a Marathi soldier; you also did an RM of that image on commons to it's current title) [107] and you are lying by saying "He added a photograph of Indian soldiers from the Indian army on the Maratha caste page." given that the Indian army didn't even exist (even as the British Indian army!) when the drawing was created. It makes a lot of sense why you didn't provide diffs for this one and while I was wavering on whether this t-ban should've been overturned now this alone convinces me that the original t-ban was bullshit. You should honestly be sanctioned for lying at AN.''

RESPONSE: You already apologized for this comment and retracted it as your assumption about the diff was incorrect so I will not provide a response here.

''On the ninth issue I don't even understand what the issue is. Shinjoya is saying that the first time the word "Marathe" as a term of self-identification was used was in the thirteenth century. [108] This could be interpreted as implying that "Maratha" as a caste existed in the thirteenth century. Sure, whatever, that's a real stretch. It certainly isn't pov-pushing it's a possibly ambiguous edit that you could've easily clarified by adding something in the first part of the section that "Maratha" as a caste didn't emerge until whatever year. The other diff [109] I can't actually understand what your issue is.''

RESPONSE: He is misrepresenting the source by giving partial quote since the source goes on to explicitly say that Marathe is not used in the "caste" sense here. The issue is the same with Sen, Sen also clarifies he is not using the word Maratha in a caste sense. After Shinjoya's edit, any reader will get the impression that the rulers at that time were from the Maratha caste, even though the source is making it clear that the inscription has nothing to do with caste. This is a clear misrepresentation of sources to promote a caste.

RESPONSE: In general, I do believe that there is a pattern of removing negative content. I have no objection if he adds positive content to balance anything he feels is negative but it needs to be WP:RS. WP:PUFFERY should not be achieved by wiping out negative sections that have good academic citations. If his intentions were in good faith, why is it that so much negative content was removed? Why was not a large amount of positive content removed? About pictures, would it be right to show a picture of British soldiers in 2021 to represent catholics in the UK? I have no objection with adding large amount of positive content on any page as long as it is sourced by a WP:RS. In fact, I had added a section on Hospitality of Rajputs ( a very positive trait) until Paul Carpenter removed it later. See. Since "friendliness" is too subjective and no one else objected, I did not add it back after he removed it. To add to what Heba was discussing, I can also point you to this edit by a Rajput editor: Recreation of article on Rajputs: Concerned people, add your content and mobilise support to de- vandalise articles such as Rajput, Rajputisation, Kshatriyas and Yadav. -User:Aishtomar. It is interesting that he did not ping anyone. That would happen if there was some communication through the backdoor and he knew they were reading his page. This is clear proof of some collaboration. You will also notice that so called new editors are coming up to edit Rajput pages but they seem to be well versed with most rules of wiki. How to file complains, SPI etc. It makes me wonder if they are really new. Heba and I often disagree. I have no communication with her or any other editor outside wikipedia. And I do not have a private email on wiki, so all my communication is public. And I don't even know her real name. Plus we disagree on some topics. For example, we had some disagreements on the Bhumihar page etc. and I have also disagreed with her and sided with Sanjaypal and Rajput editors about removing the fishermen image from the Rajput pages. Please see my latest edits on the Rajput talk page. I think Heba's prediction is correct. We are going to see a large number of "new" editors on Rajput related pages. You are free to keep your opinion of the evidence being weak. But as editors who frequently interact with these editors, the pattern is very clear and the edits shown by NitinMLK convince me further. Best, LukeEmily (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)