User:Malaiya/sandboxs

Notes

B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bene_Israel

A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Agrawal_Jain

G
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gahoi

=Discussions with Sitush who deleted a significant part of the article=

Copied from his talk page

About the text removed from Gahoi article.
I am surprized that you decided to remove mentions of inscriptions of archaeological significance. Dr. H.V. Trivedi was a distinguished epigraphist, and Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum is a publication of the ASI, a government agency in India. Dr. Kasturchand Jain Suman is a distinguished epigraphist and a linguist. Several of the inscriptions mentioned are also referred to by other respected publications. They are not unreliable sources as you claim. They are all from respected sources.

The inscriptions are the single most reliable source of information, far more reliable than any legends or follore. The 13th century inscriptions mentioned are in museums or monuments, and are very well documented.

Malaiya (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take another look at it. I do make mistakes. However, as a government agency - and one that, like the Anthropological Survey of India, has often been operated for substantially political reasons - the ASI is not necessarily reliable. It is also the case that we cannot just rely on the inscriptions as recorded by Trivedi etc since this would mean that we are using a primary source. We need instead to rely on interpretations of them, and show any alternative explanations etc. Alas, this is a common problem with India-related articles, although it tends to surface more with people quoting the Manu Smrti, Rig Veda, Sangam texts etc, none of which are reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The texts like Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum give a discussion of the inscriptions and their significance. What makes them valuable is the fact that complete text of the inscription as well often a photograph of the inscription, carved in stone, is included. There is no stronger evidence. There is nothing political or controversial about them. They are just simple facts.


 * I note you say "ASI is not necessarily reliable". ASI primarily reports facts. I can't think of a more respectable organization. Do you know any?Malaiya (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sitush has deleted most of the article along with citations. You can see the more complete version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gahoi&oldid=464483579 Malaiya (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

p
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&oldid=594741713

Curious about you
Hi Sitush,

I have many of your edits, specially in articles relating to different communities in India. I am curious - Are you a researcher in the field?

I think you grew up in England. I was wondering about your interest in the Indian castes. Do you have roots in South Asia, for example perhaps in a region like Mirpur? Thanks.

Malaiya (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Born in England, degrees in history. Never been to India, never studied the subject in an academic setting. I found out last year that my great- or great-great grandmother was born in Bangalore to English parents; she was back in England by the time she married. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&oldid=613076086

"The Raj gazetteers were poor" - justification?
Sitush,

I noted one of your edits:

08:51, 9 December 2013‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎. . (1,367 bytes) (-191)‎. . (→‎Notable people: the Raj gazetteers were poor re: caste id & the linked article does not say this)

Can you explain what you mean by "the Raj gazetteers were poor"? What is the justification? Malaiya (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * We've discussed Raj sources before, Malaiya, I'm sure. They are rarely cited by modern academics precisely because they were so poor; when they are cited, it is usually in the context of dismissing what they say or purely as "colour" for commentary on developing theories etc. Raj writers were generally untrained in matters such as ethnology, unquestioning of what they were told, engaged mainly in study for the purpose of control rather than knowledge per se, adherents of discredited theories such as scientific racism, and so on. Take it as read that the consensus is and has long been that we avoid them. There is at least one exception, though: Hastings' work on religion is, I think, generally still considered ok. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My apologies. I've talked with people using the Malaiya name here on Wikipedia before but it looks from your talk page etc as if they were not you. Nonetheless, I hope that the above makes sense, first sentence excepted. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sitush: Malaiya (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What are the reliable sources for caste histories for the Raj period (1858–1947) in your opinion? Can you mention a few examples?
 * While we are on this subject, what sources you consider reliable (i) before 1858 and (ii) after 1947? -


 * There are over 4000 castes, according to some accounts, and the number of people who have written about them is higher still. I can't possibly give you a list of the sources that are reliable for the history of a specific caste, sorry. You'll need to read WP:RS to get an understanding of how sourcing workes on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please give us just a few examples, say 2 to 4, for each of the three periods, so that we will know what references you regard as reliable. - Malaiya (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Anything on whatever caste it may be that has been published by a respected academic press, eg: SUNY, Brill, Cambridge University Press, University of California. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you mention any specific articles or books? And where did the authors who published their work with these publishers get their information? - Malaiya (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but you are asking far too broad a question. We have a noticeboard - WP:RSN - and the regulars there generally now only deal with specific requests for comment about the reliability of a source. Unless you tell them what article it relates to, what the proposed statement is, what you want to use as a source etc they usually steer clear of it. Working out what is or is not reliable is probably sometimes difficult, although I munst admit that I generally don't find it so. In simple terms, and excluding extreme cases such as David Irving and Koenraad Elst, you can assume that a modern academic is always going to be okay. We are standing on the shoulders of giants here, and the giants are often the academics because their work has been peer-reviewed.


 * As an example of what certainly are reliable sources, try the books etc written by Susan Bayly. Anything she writes will be reliable, although her interpretations may not be the only possible viewpoint (see our attitude regarding neutrality). If someone says that a source is not reliable then remember that you can always discuss that specific source with them and, if you are still unhappy, you can try dispute resolution or ask at WP:RSN. You will quite often find that the things have been discussed in the past and that consensus already exists. While consensus can change, there are situations - such as the Raj material - where that seems to be extremely unlikely, for the reasons (and more) that I gave at the top of this thread. - Sitush (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

BK
http://books.google.com/books/about/Caste_Society_and_Politics_in_India_from.html?id=HbAjKR_iHogC

I should also mention that the author of this book (Susan Bayly) goes under the username 'Sitush' in Wikipedia; who enjoys quoting this book in many caste and community related articles (to raise it's academic importance? I can only suspect). Outside of Wikipedia, this book holds no or very little academic value as significant conclusions are drawn solely from opinion of the author.