User talk:Sitush/Common

Why
Hello, can someone educate me why is that British raj era books are not considered as a reference? Is there any parallel to anywhere else in the world? Thanks! --OnlyTruthShallPrevail (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they were written by imperial administrators, not by any kind of scientists or academics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

One thing how is james tod not reliable? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is he a scientist or an academic? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He was an East India Company officer and administrator. His scholarly works were heavily criticized even when first published, and is notoriously inaccurate even for British Raj era "scholars". He was known for having a very pro-Rajput bias, and used bardic legends and Hindu texts to construct a glorified history for them, which was criticized then and now by historians. Chariotrider555 (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

People of India national series by Oxford University Press
Hi, I saw your comment |here that "The earlier People of India national series, which was published by Oxford University Press, is indeed a quality source", which is |this revised edition 2002. Does this count as a credible source to use on Wikipedia for caste related articles? If so, can you clarify that in your Castelists? (I know you have mentioned "states" series, hopefully other editors would understand that) Anthony gomes 92 (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC).
 * Yes, it should be included in the castelist, but for me, I would like to clarify that I am aware of the difference between state series and the another one by OUP (which is reliable).Heba Aisha (talk) 23:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)