Talk:Ethnic groups in Delhi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Delhi (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Renamed as uncontroversial. Ucucha 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Ucucha 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)



Ethinic groups in DelhiEthnic groups in Delhi — The current page misspells ethnic as 'ethinic'.This has been corrected to 'ethnic'.--115.252.77.66 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion of the article[edit]

This is an excellent article, well-written and supported by reliable and verifiable sources. The tag appears motivated by bias, indeed naked prejudice. The tag on caste information too is unfair. India has not held caste counts since 1931; inevitably therefore our knowledge comes from older sources. But this does not mean that the statistics presented are irrelevant. They depict relative proportions of various castes, not their absolute numbers -- only the latter figures have changed over time; the former are likely to have remained constant, because all castes have grown in number, not any one in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.182.92 (talkcontribs)

  • Who wrote this commentary? The author? Sorry, but the article is terrible--essay-like, improperly referenced, apparently full of original research, etc. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I tagged the caste section with the outofdate tag. As for, "They depict relative proportions of various castes, not their absolute numbers -- only the latter figures have changed over time; the former are likely to have remained constant, because all castes have grown in number, not any one in particular", well, {{citation needed}}. That is not something you can state as a fact in an article. They've all grown - is there data to show that they have grown at the same rate? Can you cite good demographic information to back up that claim? LadyofShalott 04:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Stop engaging in vandalism! Facts that are well-known do not require citations. One would be permitted to say without any citation that Chennai is south of Delhi. The other truism about science is that good knowledge does not await the arrival of perfect knowledge. Since the earlier censuses are all that we have, their information cannot be dismissed on the grounds that it is so many decades old. If you had more recent facts to replace what is written there, then that would be fine; but you've got nothing to show.

Remember also that your own articles can be vandalised too! You don't own the Wikipedia. Learn to be tolerant and modest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.252.77.66 (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Eh, tolerant? I think most of us here are tolerant, but that doesn't mean we should allow editors to not play by the rules. One of the rules is WP:RS: the injunction that we use reliable sources. This subject matter of the article is contentious, as Jyoti Malhorata pointed out, and to have material based on unreliable sources is a no-no. As it turns out, much of the content is based on Sanjay Yadav's books The Invasion of Delhi (how's that for a non-neutral title) and The Environmental Crisis of Delhi. Those books are self-published ("Worldwide Books"? really), and the author's article, Sanjay Yadav (author), appears to be little more than a resume. I wonder what that author's involvement was in this article and the article on himself.

    At any rate, I am about to begin cleaning up by removing material that is clearly unencyclopedic in tone and content and material that is not based on reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Speaking of Sanjay Yadav--the "Ethnic landscape in 1991" section was sourced to Yadav's book and to a site called "http://www.delhiplanning.nec.in". That link is dead, but a Google search reveals that someone enjoys citing it.

    Now that we've come that far, there are some interesting things to learn from the history of Ethnic groups in Delhi, Sanjay Yadav (author), Environment of Delhi, and perhaps some other articles. An SPI is next. Drmies (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I wonder just what it is the IP considers "vandalism"? You may disagree with the criticisms being leveled against the article, but any attempt at improving the encyclopedia - including those with which you disagree, are strictly not vandalism. Please refrain from accusing others of it in vain, or of threatening to do it. LadyofShalott 00:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I have chopped everything that I consider to be non-neutral, unverified, or verified with reference to unreliable sources (such as Mr. Yadav's self-published books). What's left of the article is a few statements sourced to books I don't have access to and a statement about some nativist rumblings. Perhaps a merger into Delhi ("Demographics" section) is the way to go. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
We can get sourced content on socio-ethnic groups within Delhi; there's quite a bit of info available out there documenting the different settlements, timelines and migration patterns. However, census figures won't be available. Now that you have chopped off the POV text, it's quite possible to add clean content. I'll search and post some sources out here over the next couple of days and maybe we could get a start class article quite easily. —SpacemanSpiff 07:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, Spiffy. But I don't want to take you away from the more important work that you seem to be doing these days: "I lean and loaf at my ease observing a spear of summer grass." Drmies (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahir, Gujjar and Jats are dominant communities of Rural Delhi[edit]

Passive voices: a penetrating study of Muslims in India


http://books.google.co.in/books?id=H6c5AQAAIAAJ&q=gujjars+and+ahirs+of+pakistan&dq=gujjars+and+ahirs+of+pakistan&hl=en&ei=8sCaTa72IYaGrAeslZDnBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBjgU

Gazetteer of rural Delhi-page 41


http://books.google.com/books?id=Spl3hkRyCZAC&pg=PA34&dq=ahir+villages+delhi&hl=en&ei=nFw9Tc3ND8GqlAeJ7dHoBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAjgU#v=onepage&q=ahir%20villages%20delhi&f=true


http://books.google.com/books?id=Jv21AAAAIAAJ&q=ahir+villages+delhi&dq=ahir+villages+delhi&hl=en&ei=SV09TYP-D4L7lweW_62rBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CEwQ6AEwCTge