User talk:Sitush

... or panic madly and freak out?

Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

Manspreading

Apology

Sorry for causing you problems. And well done fighting vandalism. Good luck.

List of Rajputs

Sir, the List of Rajputs article has a lot of entries without self-identification. Please take a look at it. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh gosh, not again. That thing needs permanent semi-protection or something else that limits the clueless. - Sitush (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Definitely needs permanent semi-protection. It seems all these entries were made by 2-3 users as can be seen in this diff. Should we revert back to IronGargoyle's edit dated 27 March 2019? Although some seems self-identified. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The page is indefinitely semiprotected, guys. Ever since 2012, actually. So the clueless additions of recent years have all been made by autoconfirmed users. Mostly recently autoconfirmed, or not very active — the redlinked usernames are a bit of a clue. I've now raised the protection to extended confirmed, also indefinite. But I'll leave it to you guys to revert as needed; I think you have studied the individual additions more than I have. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC).

PS, thank you for the thankyou, @Fylindfotberserk: that was quick! Bishonen | talk 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Thank you and welcome sir. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Bishonen: looks like you should add me to the list of the clueless to whom I referred above. I really wasn't thinking when I wrote what I did. @Fylindfotberserk: unless you want to wade through the lot, I would be inclined to revert to the last known decent version and let people expand it again in small amounts. THere's just too much for me to check this time round but, as always, there will be a lot that fall short of our requirements. - Sitush (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm ready to revert it back to IronGargoyle's version now. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Infobox population fields

Based on this edit and recent ones, got a doubt on adding pop_est field? Please check if that field was correct.--Vin09 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Seemed fine to me in theory. The actual population is usually meant to come from the census. But whether we actually need both the actual from 2011 and an estimate from 2017 is something I'm not sure about. I can see the use where the boundaries have changed that cause a massive change from the census figures and which then affect public works that we are describing, such as transportation projects. Whether it is useful when there is little change is another matter but I'm not an expert on using that infobox and the documentation for it doesn't seem to say anything other than what is supposed to be inserted there. - Sitush (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

dude just don't erase the pages okay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahanjhon (talk • contribs) 01:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Fram

My only activity here will be in relation to Wikipedia:Community response to Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram until such time as the matter is resolved by either (a) clear and reasonable justification from the WMF for their actions relating to it, or (b) a reversal of those actions. I'm effectively withdrawing my efforts to build and improve this thing until then. I hope that others will, too. - Sitush (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)Thanks for drawing my attention to this mess. PamD 16:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

No probs, PamD. If anything, things have got worse despite an attempted explanation by the Lead Manager for Trust & Safety on that page in the last few hours. As one of those who definitely has a multitude of detractors, I'd guess I am now in the WMF firing line even though they haven't explained their new standards and seemingly have no intention of doing so.

There are very few competent people working in the India topic area (especially caste), and one less since SpacemanSpiff went. If I and a couple of others pull out rather than face the humiliation of being "disappeared" by people who almost certainly will have no clue about it, we know from experience that the area will rapidly deteriorate from being at least minutely neutral and encyclopaedic into a hopeless mess claiming to represent the lives of 1.2 billion people. We few competent contributors to it shouldn't be indispensable but unfortunately we are because most of the rage about systemic bias concentrates on women & LGBT, rather than being spread more evenly to include all the other areas that attract insufficient (at least reasonable-)quality edits. But how can we operate when we don't know the standards, let alone make a judgment of whether we feel those standards to be reasonable. Everyone is now a guinea-pig in some unexplained WMF experiment.

Right now, I feel little trust and no safety in contributing here. That's ironic. - Sitush (talk) 06:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've been spending too much time reading that page in the last couple of days, including seeing Jan's post and the replies thereto. I just wikignome around and rarely get into controversial areas, but can imagine how difficult it is in your position where you're trying to uphold encyclopedic standards surrounded by a sea of POV-pushers and less competent editors. Good luck. PamD 07:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Swakula Sali page

Hello status ji..

I have more details for this page ... kindly contact me to my email address

Thank you SakarayShankar (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not contributing to Wikipedia at the moment - see User_talk:Sitush#Fram above. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Are Gujarati Sources are not reliable on Wikipedia ?

My edits are being removed by user @HinduKshatrana on @Chudasama_dynasty page, he is saying that sources which are in Gujarati are not reliable , is it so ? If Hemchandracharya's Sanskrit sources are reliable than what's wrong in noted poet Zaverchandmeghani's Gujarati sorces , Kindly protect my edits ,please help. Raakuldeep (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry but I am not contributing to Wikipedia at the moment - see User_talk:Sitush#Fram above. - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Iridescent#Code of conduct

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Iridescent#Code of conduct. ∯WBG^converse 10:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48

Offline Source of Information

Can i put statements on wikipedia which are based on BOOKS which i have read offline and are a reputable source? i will provide the page number, ISBN no. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikhilPatelReal (talk • contribs) 10:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm neutral sources...

I've seen you comment on the notoriously unreliable caste articles and their sources, and I thought of you just now, as I ran into this, Siege_of_Cawnpore#Bibighar_massacre. It reads like Christian hagiography of martyrs thrown to the lions, and this is the source. Many of the sources in that article are pretty old; I wonder if modern sources exist and if they might not present a more neutral assessment. BTW I got here via Joseph Rooney (priest), which is pretty interesting. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

What's your opinion on ...

This opinion piece on the BBC as well as the guy's book The Truth About Us: The Politics of Information from Manu to Modi? I have no desire to dip my toes into caste issues, but do try to stay abreast of most major historical developments... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Unsolicited opinion, FWIW. As far as I am aware, there is a fair degree of evidence for the idea that the British Raj helped create the rather simplistic four-caste model. However, I don't know how many genuine historians would buy the argument that "it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature"; there's far too much evidence of substantial caste hierarchy from pre-colonial times. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Another unsolicited opinion. A controversial question but his opinion is largely true.

Caste is largely a meaningless western term (which in this context, equates with varna). The classical varna-scheme was primarily meaningful only to those, who self-considered themselves as Brahmins. The system was remarkably fluid and concepts of any strict hierarchy were hardly any observed.

The current caste system (as we know of it) was near-entirely developed during the post-Mughal period, that also corresponded to the establishment of the British rule (~ late 18th and early 19th century). Varna-consciousness grew immensely during these spans, (partially) as a result of the nonsensical creation (!!) (and listing) of castes by amateur ethnographers and their censuses and also because of the inherent bias present in the translation of the oriental texts by the selective employment of Brahmins. All along, the Britishers introduced significant vigor into the system by providing state-backing and they nearly ritualized it within ~ 100 years. ∯WBG^converse 18:34, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've stayed away from commenting, but, since this seems to be becoming the Village Square, a tribute no doubt to Sitush's cordiality, here's my two cents. Bluntly, the Hindu caste system in India is the oldest, and the most culturally entrenched, system of apartheid in the world. Make no mistake about it, it is not more generally "Indian," or "South Asian," though Muslims and Christians in South Asia are to considerably lesser degrees affected by it; it is not even Hindu in the Caribbean, for they are more forgiving of infringements. You only have to read a poignant description by Faxian (a Chinese visitor of the 4th century) of an outcast man standing at the village gate, sounding a pair of wooden castanets to announce his imminent entry, and warning the caste Hindus to get out of the way—to know how old and demeaning it is. The Brits were not idiots to make it up out of thin air, to then do an about face, and idealize the very newly minted low-down castes such as Kurmi, Jats, Kachchis or Keoris—the agricultural castes or the market gardeners, which, in British estimation, were imbued with a work ethic to match the Protestant—and at the same time to anathematize Brahmins and Kshatriyas—the two highest castes, who found physical work polluting, and whose men deemed the open air itself to be polluting for their women. Anecdotes abound of British land revenue (tax) officers, who, as they approached a North Indian village, could correctly spot the Brahmin and Kshatriya fields by their unkemptness and by the tell tale absence of women. Some of those behaviours were created in the wake of British or Mughal interventions (as the Baylys, Christopher and Susan, have described in their books), but broad "caste-like" behaviour is old. Peter Robb has written about it.

Many Indians who are now aware of a larger more egalitarian world in which they live, not to mention a culturally more influential one, have latched on to this new form of scapegoating. "No, no, it wasn't us. It was the Brits (or the Mughals)" To which I say, "For heavens sakes, if it wasn't you, how come you haven't been able to shake it off for 70 years (or the last 200), since they left (or were made powerless)? To be fair, India has to some degree shaken off the stratification, especially the economic one, implicit in the traditional system; but as a form of endogamy, the caste system in Hindu India is very much alive and well. (See the results of a 2014 survey, here) I've heard Indians say in response, "Well it is no different from inter-racial marriages in the US." In once sense they are right. The caste system, most likely, did begin as a form of walling out the indigenous (and often darker skinned) races of India by the Indo-Aryans. All the professions that had little stigma, and even some pride of place, in the Indus Valley Civilization, for which the Aryans had no history of skill—the potter, the carpenter, the mason, the jeweller, the weaver—were gradually turned into low-castes; the sweepers who maintained the IVC's vaunted drainage system, had it worse; they were turned into outcasts. The cobblers, whose existence depends upon a cow being skinned, had it no better. And that is how it has remained for the most part. To sum all this, the British might have polished the rungs of the ladder in different stains of hearsay varnish, but the ladder of discrimination is ancient. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

PS The rules of endogamy and of subordination of castes are described in the 1687 Travels of Monsieur de Thevenot into the Levant, volume III Indies, 1687 AD, page 64 long before the British had had any opportunity to affect Indian behavior. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

So... what would be a good college-level introduction to the whole of Indian history? Or Indian and South Asian? I'm wary of getting sucked into a Hinduvatu/a apologetic. I can generally pick out the crap from the good stuff with most subjects, but am at a bit of a loss on India - and my library lacks a good introduction to Indian history. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, this's a nice write-up.

But, whilst it's undeniable that the system is well-ancient (pre-colonial Bhakti poetry is another locus to argue from that aspect), ain't polish an understatement?

Dirks, Talbot et al have documented about how the different tiers of the caste-system varied from place to place in widely diverse manners, how the members shew remarkable fluidity and how, barring the topmost and bottom-most tier, there often existed a lack of definite criterion for the middle tiers. Most importantly, the caste-system was hardly the sole axis of social identification and was only one of the many pluralistic (and differential) ladder-systems. In many regions, it was not the dominant one, either. Fukuzawa et al have detailed as to how the creation, enforcement and subsequent maintenance of a rigid caste-order in Maharshtra was the outcome of a (Brahman-led) state-regulated social-reform.

The caste-system was obviously not invented by the British but IMO, their political and legal instruments, unarguably reified the multitude of locally diverse forms of social structure under a common banner and legitimised the Brahmanic ideologies and institutions. An oppression-based-hierarchy, (that stemmed from rank in society), was a distinct and pervasive feature of Indian history but tying that in particular to a henceforth-rigid caste-system was almost entirely the efforts of colonial rule. ∯WBG^converse 14:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to clutter up Sitush's talk page, but, briefly, by the time the Indian censuses began to itemize caste in fine categories such as "clean Shudra," from whom the Brahmins could accept water and food cooked in clarified butter (or some such), and "unclean Shudras," the Brahmins had already lost much of their shine in Indian society. (Their success in seeking out education for advancement, is a different story, with different roots.) For the period also overlapped with the foundation of the Kayastha-, the Yadav-, the Kurmi-, the Jat- and other middle-caste associations, each proclaiming their higher caste status. As Periyar, the anti-caste nationalist from Tamil Nadu had wisely observed, "In the south, we rejected caste itself; in the north, they rejected only their low status within caste." Also, people tend to confuse the orientalists's kowtowing to the Brahmin Sanskrit scholars a la Benares- or Calcutta Sanskrit Colleges (founded by the Company mid-way through its rule) with the censuses of a hundred years later. People such as Risely, overreaching though they might have been, were not just talking to the Brahmins, but actually collecting "field reports," of caste- and tribal practises, howsoever dubious, from all sorts of sources. The nau, the village barber, whose traditional colorful role in high-caste weddings, for example, as a spy for one bridal party, for ascertaining in advance the looks, the character, the reputation of the other; his other role as a "brahmin/priest" himself in performing low-caste weddings, were not stories made up by the British or by their Brahmin informants. Those are old. And fascinating.

Some of the Indian caste classification had already begun to appear at the time of late Company rule. In the law courts, and especially, in early censuses of the North-Western Provinces, people were asked for their full names. Most people did not have any second name. Over a fifty-year period, the adding of caste names, with more and more Sanskritized versions, e.g. from "Pandit Mahadeo" to "Mahadeo Chaubey" to "Mahadev Chaturvedi" began in India. By the time Risely's notorious 1901 census came around, the fine honing of caste was already happening widely in Indian society. It was a traditionally hierarchical society's response to modernity. The change would have happened in India without the British. You can see the old names, frozen in time, in the present-day Caribbean Hindu names. The change never happened in the Caribbean despite the British. Anyway, I have to run. Some other time. Some other place.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are two, both available free on the internet (at least for now), both written by famous historians of India, and both downloadable:

• A History of India by Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund
• A History of India by Burton Stein (Of course, they can also be bought on Amazon)

Two others that are slightly older, but also written by famous historians of India Romila Thapar and Percival Spear are also available free:

• Penguin History of Early India (Thapar)
• Penguin History of India, volume 2 (Spear)

For what's its worth, while I'm at it, here are most of the remaining currently popular books:

Some popular textbooks on Indian history

Asher, C. B.; Talbot, C (1 January 2008), India Before Europe (1st ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-51750-8 Nicely written, not intro level though; lots of art and architecture asides; covers the period: ca 1100 to 1750 or thereabouts. Bose, S.; Jalal, A. (11 March 2011), Modern South Asia: History, Culture, Political Economy (3rd ed.), Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-77942-5 Bold and NPOV, but not beginner level. Husband and wife team. He however becomes unreliable when the topics involve Bengal, and especially his great uncle Subhas Chandra Bose. She's neutral. Brown, J. M. (26 May 1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy, The Short Oxford History of the Modern World (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-873113-9 Was once a great book. Now slightly dated. By famous historian of the Cambridge school. Insightful. Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (1 August 2004), A History of India, 4th, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-32920-0 Discussed above. Ludden, D. (13 June 2002), India and South Asia: A Short History, One World, ISBN 978-1-85168-237-9 A somewhat unorthodox approach by a UPenn historian. A hidden gem of sorts. Might not be the easiest introduction. Metcalf, B.; Metcalf, T. R. (9 October 2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-68225-1 A popular classic, but not intro level, by American husband and wife historians of South Asia. Carefully, and neutrally written. Readable. Robb, P. (2001), A History of India, London: Palgrave, ISBN 978-0-333-69129-8 A book by a historian at School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), London. Non-traditional in organization, and therefore, not really intro level. Always has insightful observations. Singh, U. (2009), A History of Ancient and Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century, Delhi: Longman, ISBN 978-81-317-1677-9 This is a beginners book, perhaps even high-school level. I find her somewhat unreliable. Not Hindutva even remotely, but still a tad nationalistic. Stein, B. (16 June 1998), A History of India (1st ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, ISBN 978-0-631-20546-3 Discussed above. A classic by a brilliant historian. Thapar, Romila (2003), Penguin history of early India: from the origins to A.D.1300, Penguin Books, retrieved 13 February 2012 Discussed above. Landmark book by preeminent historian of early India, and winner of the Library of Congress's Kluge Prize. Resolutely anti-Hindutva. Wolpert, S. (25 December 2003), A New History of India (7th ed.), Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-516678-1 A breezy, sometimes slightly unfocused, but always readable book by another famous old historian of India

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• FWIW, I concur entirely with F&F's assessments of Metcalf & Metcalf, Spear, and Thapar; they were some of the earlier texts I explored as a serious reader, and I found them excellent. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I am not contributing at the moment (see section further above) but would encourage you to take a look at some of the suggestions even if you have no intention of editing in the topic area. It's fascinating stuff and, of course, has a direct effect on over 1.2 billion living people. - Sitush (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Ealdgyth, Our own page on Caste system in India is about the best writing on the caste system available in the English language and I would highly recommend it.

Most 'History of India' books are quite clueless about the caste system, with the exception of Thapar, but Thapar stays at a fairly abstract level without giving specifics.

The caste system was quite fluid through history and so most generalities are usually false. Suffice to say that the caste system was well-defined at the top (Brahmins and the ruling clans) and the bottom ('untouchables'). These these two ends were constant throughout history. It was the middle (constituting about 80% of the population) that was fluid. At the time the British founded Fort St. George, Madras, "modern castes" were emerging in the middle, driven by competition for power in the ruins of the Mughal Empire and the Vijayanagara Empire. This is what the British saw, and then institutionalised it. They also mixed it up with varna (part of Brahminical ideology) to make a powerful cocktail and then threw it back at the Indians. The power the Brahmins enjoyed under the British rule was unprecedented in the history of India. We are still trying to deal with the fallout, including Hindutva. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Arain

Can you (when you're back!), or one of your talkpage watchers, take a look at this article? I raised its protection level on spotting a 3RR report but can't judge the merits of the recent stream of edits that removed/added several kb of content. Abecedare (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Im one the guys who added the several kb of content.:) But I'm ever so slightly annoyed at its removal. All the gotra (sub-castes) I added were taken from either H.A.Rose or Noor Arain and Ishtiaq Ahmed. Its not my own conjecture on the issue. I'm wasn't sure if Arain are Rajput or Arab and to that extent I represented both sides of the coin and I also created the infobox currently on the page reflecting both opinions (although someone has recently changed that too). As of recently I have shifted more towards the view that Arain are Suryvanshi Rajput -as Ishtiaq Ahmed mentions this as one of the oldest theories, based on the genetics work of the Harrapa Project which I've reflected on the Arain (delhi) page its also due to this genetics work that I wrote down the Raja Bhutta oral tradition (which is also present in the works of H.A.Rose and not my own conjecture] since it would seem to have the most evidence behind it (but i still added the fact that they had higher amounts of baloch genetics than other punjabi castes in an effort to be as impartial as possible). I also added Arain to the suryavanshi page and put their infobox caste as suryavanshi.

I also think that its crucial to have the "Sutlej vs ghaggar vs hissar arain section". Because previous users seem to be very confused about the status of Arain as either zamindar or market gardening or Malis and i think that the heading is essential to explain the sutlej arain as a landowning caste and all other arain to be occupational appropriations as mentioned by H.A.Rose. Again this isnt my own conjecture. Indeed it makes little sense to declare arain as not being landowning (as the version before me did) when they owned 33% Jalandhar (see gazetteer). I understand other users adding the market gardening reference and compering Arain to Malis but its poor research on their behalf when this only applies to Hissar Arain and Arain of non-sutlej areas as H.A.Rose describes.

Another thing that annoys me is that my addition of Arain being "to a man mohammedan and orthodox" is for some reason always removed even though I've taken it directly from H.A.Rose. But i think that its an important point as it helps differentiate arain from Hindu Sainis and Kamboj to whom they are often compared (although the genetic testing has shown arain to be distinct from them)

Anyway It took me a lot of effort to write down that content and would appreciate if it was kept there, especially due to the fact that most if not all is backed up by sources. If there are indeed legitimate bones of contention then i dont mind seeing it removed but otherwise I find it annoying to see it removed for no legitimate reason whatsoever.

I welcome the block on the page as necessary but its also locked me out too so i can't revert the edition to my own.

Anyway thank you for your time -flyingsimurgh — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingSimurgh (talk • contribs) 16:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits of concern

I know you're not editing content right now, but in the hope that you'll return, I wanted to bring these edits to your attention. I hope they don't make you less likely to return, but I know you've dealt with far worse. I simply don't have the time right now. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:55, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Some more here, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mention in upcoming issue of The Signpost

Just wanted you to know your name is in a sidebar about striking editors for the upcoming issue of The Signpost. If you have any comments you can leave them on my talkpage or other Signpost official channels. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)