|The Wikipedia community has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Please familiarize yourself with the sanctions authorized for this topic area before making further edits.|
Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
|WikiProject Ethnic groups||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
Threads older than 2 months may be archived by .
- 1 Sughra Ahmad Mughal/18.104.22.168
- 2 The Sitush Syndrome
- 3 Article fully protected for a week
- 4 Refusal of Sitush to follow Wikipedia Rules of Dispute Resolution
- 5 Move to "Jadoon (people)"
- 6 Removing fake and unreliable information
- 7 Jadoon
- 8 Sourcing and recent expansion
- 9 Are Qazi of dodiyal from jadoon tribe?
Sughra Ahmad Mughal/22.214.171.124
The saying, “Some minds are like concrete, all mixed up and permanently set!” holds true for your way of thinking, as does the Pashto proverb, "Putting books on a donkey doesn't make it intelligent."
You asked for references and I gave them to you. If you don’t read them, it explains to everyone why you made ignorant comments in the first place. That’s your own undoing.
In fact I went to the original documents – like a serious researcher - unlike yourself whose basing your views on secondary and tertiary information that gets interpreted differently each time.
No-one can help someone who continues to disagree with the primary source, yet agrees with the secondary and tertiary sources. Speaks poorly of your research method. You obviously have your own agenda.
Serious researchers do what I do – amateurs do what you do. You’re not as “flexible in your views” as you say you are and are the one who can’t take the critique as is proven in your response.
The good thing is as a result of your inquiry, the INACCURACIES of Olaf Caroes’ book regarding the Jadoons are there for everyone to see – and the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS correcting his assumptions are there for everyone to read!
Adil Khan Jadoon
- Dear Sughra Mughal:
- I have read your original comments on the Jadoon tribe and then the comments made by Adil Khan. It is clear that he has taken information from several respectable sources and he has taken the time to fully quote these in his response to you. However your response to him was very unreasonable and rude. You say in your reply to Adil Khan:
- “On the above grounds it leaves no room for the enlightened to carry on any further discussion especially with you. I only respect people of knowledge, who are rational, enlightened and exhibit the protocol of communication”.
- If Adil Khan is not knowledgeable, I certainly donot feel that you have the knowledge to be commenting in an authoritative way on the Jadoon tribe. It is clear for our readers to see who is more knowledgeable and correct on this subject.
- Tahir Khan Jadoon.
The Sitush Syndrome
SQGibbon: Since you are source of reason in Wikipedia, I have a question. What makes Sitush be the judge of what source is reliable or not? Articles on Wikipedia have been supported by all types news paper citings, and no one deletes the claim because it was cited by a journalist. The Jadoon article has been supported by various references - none of the references came from newspapers but from books written by people who genuinely were interested in finding facts/information about the tribe. For example, Sultan Khan Jadoon. Correct he came from the Jadoon tribe, but if you read his book and I am sure Sitush has not, he is be no means biased just because he comes from the tribe. He was a librarian at Peshawar University and so had access to rare books. In his book he puts forward all the literature there is on the tribe, including the works of Bellew, Raverty, Rose, Caroe and so on and debates on their validity. His book was published in c.2000, and that citation has been removed because Sitush takes it as "not reliable". The likes of Sitush do more "harm" to Wikipedia than "good", because it becomes a battle of "I delete" "you delete" with no end in sight. It is the reason why I decided not to waste any further time on improving this article, because all the hard work is deleted by Sitush. I was one of the first contributors to the article on Pashtuns, in those days I just did it anonymously, but what a great article it turned out to be. If Sitush had found it he would have nipped it in the bud, because a lot of the early authors on Pashtuns were Raverty, Bellew, Rose and the likes! These people and their books were the result of the Colonial Encounter with Afghanistan and India. The later writers used these books as the framework to build upon. Does that mean that their works on Pashtuns is baseless because these early writers "were not reliable sources" as Sitush says?
Anyway, the "good" thing is a lot of people have noticed his fundamental flaw in wikipedia, and have set up their own websites detailing this history of Jadoons. ~ Mulberry Sky
- You are becoming very disruptive, Mulberry sky. Please can you confirm that you have read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SPS. I've said before that we do not use the Raj sources because they really were muddled efforts - one recent discussion about them as a meta issue was here and there are hundreds of others scattered around individual caste-related articles, at WP:DRN etc. I cannot keep explaining the same thing to you like a broken record. You are welcome to use those sources for an article about the Jadoon on the web, just not on this bit of the web. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush - they are TRANSLATIONS of Persian documents. They were not made up by the British Colonialists. Olaf Caroe's book relied heavily on them - why do you treat that as "authentic"? He was the last governor of the NWFP. From some reason you seem to have a gripe with Jadoons and you are using Wikipedia as your platform. Why don't you delete other articles of little known Pashtun and non-Pashtun tribes that live in the same region? and have used "Raj Era References". Why are you so eager to focus on Jadoons? See what a backlash that would cause you. I would improve the references If I knew the hard work would not be deleted by you. Why waste time improving an article when it keeps on getting vandalized. Sanctions should be put on you. This article should be allowed to stay and improved upon. ~ Mulberry sky.
- Yes, some of them are and those are even more unreliable, per WP:PRIMARY. We don't use ancient texts. And I don't focus on Jadoons - don't be idiotic. If you were really "improving" this article, I wouldn't have to keep coming back here and fixing it. Now either recognise that we have policies here and that you must abide by them or go somewhere else. I'm flat out of patience now. - Sitush (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush - You haven't answered my question and have got mixed up in your reply. How can an article be improved if it gets deleted just because you feel like it? I have a real job and can't devote 100% to Wikipedia. If I start working on the article by the time I get free time to improve it you've deleted everything. So nothing gets done. So leave the article alone and IT WILL IMPROVE - believe me. That's the way Wikipedia works. That's what happened with the article on Pashtuns. We're on the SAME side Sitush - let's part as collaborators on a worthwhile cause. (I've restored the article again). Give hope a chance! ~ Mulberry sky.
Article fully protected for a week
As blocks for edit warring were imminent, I decided to lock down the article for a week. The combatants are advised to follow the long and winding road of dispute resolution. Favonian (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Favonian: I'm not really interested in DR. This is a long-term pov pusher here who has been supporting sockpuppets (there is a report open at SPI again for one of those, earlier today) and has a complete WP:IDHT thing when it comes to policies. They've had sanctions notices etc and still it goes on. If Mulberry sky wants to produce a draft for review in their sandbox then I'll happily take a look at it ... but if it includes ancient Persian texts, Raj sources and so on then it really will be a waste of their time. - Sitush (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Refusal of Sitush to follow Wikipedia Rules of Dispute Resolution
Sitush was asked by @Favonian to follow the Wikipdia Rules for dispute resolution and Sitush flatly denied that approach. Now Sitush does not want to follow the Wikipedia Rules for Dispute Resolution. It reminds me of the saying, “A sieve said to a kettle, “you have two holes!”
The article on Jadoon, does not have any racial slurs nor discusses an controversial / inflammatory topic. It also is now (and has been for some time) following the wikipedia rules of citation as explained to me earlier (see above) by SQGibbon: “In Wikipedia we prefer secondary sources to primary sources (please read WP:SECONDARY) for a variety of reasons. But if you are going to use primary sources for your edits then at the very least you need to summarize them so we can get rid of those long quoted passages.”
NOTE: “But if you are going to use primary sources for your edits then at the very least you need to summarize them so we can get rid of those long quoted passages.”
In summary you need to put it in your own words and then give the reference – whatever the source of the reference is. It may be that they only time someone did research on the topic was in the 1800s , during the British Colonial Era – so be it. That becomes the “latest,” verifiable, source. It is that simple.
It is clear to the reader who is correct and I rest my case.
Those who are interested should help prevent Sitush vandalising this article by using the formal means available in Wikipedia i.e. use the Dispute Resolution site referenced by @Favonia. We probably need to review the section "Resolving content disputes with outside help" and sub-section: “Request Community Input on Article Content” as we have tried the other means without success. Mulberry sky (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- You basically have three options at this stage. The first, which you will reject, is to give up trying to push this stuff that, yes, may be correct but falls foul of our policies. The second is to seek a third opinion but I'm not entirely sure that there have been just two people involved in this dispute, and even one more person would likely caused a reviewer to reject your appeal. The third is to take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard, in which case I would advise you first to read WP:IDHT and all the other policy/guideline links that I have previously given to you, and secondly to consider what really is common sense: just because something is the most recent information available (basically, what you said today at User talk:SQGibbon) doesn't make it valid here. All sorts of weird and wonderful claims are the most recent that are available but they are not necessarily reliable and I've even given you a direct link to a recent discussion about why Raj sources are indeed not great. If I were you, I would spend time trying to find sources that - whether laudatory or otherwise - explain the history, culture and other aspects of the Jadoon community. Failing that basic work, the article will likely be deleted anyway. I've made some attempts to do this in the past but I'm trying to cover a lot of things and just maybe I have missed something despite my fairly considerable reputation for being good at finding policy-compliant sources. It's your choice.
- Oh, there is one other option: draft something in your sandbox and ask people to review it as a proposal to replace the present (very poor) wording of this article. If I were you, that is what I would do first. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush regarding your last remark about yourself, your actions speak louder than your words! - and you write, "If I were you, I would spend time trying to find sources that - whether laudatory or otherwise -explain the history, culture and other aspects of the Jadoon community." But you delete any attempt at this!
Any rational person would leave the topic there with all the references as is, and slowly it WOULD IMPROVE - believe me. This is how Wikipedia works. People modify it here and there. Add references. Find even better references. If something does not read well, improve the English. The Jadoon topic is not a political topic, it's not a racist topic that would make it controversial. It is Jadoons explaining their culture, history, where they live, their various clans and so on. Some of the knowledge is not in books because no one has interviewed Jadoons in recent times. That's they way with knowledge, research, and scholarly activities.
Wikipedia would have a notice on the top saying that "this article is not properly referenced etc" to show readers they need to be cautious when citing it, but that is all. It should not be vandalized by removing huge chunks just because YOU don't like it. How would you like if if people went to your contributions and just removed your hard work?
Why are you getting so hyped about it? and being so focused on Jadoons - if you did not have any vested interest in it?
You definitely have something against them. They did something to you in your past. It so obvious. Why don't you act like this on any of the other Pashtun tribes? or even the non-Pashtun tribes of this area or any part of the world.Mulberry sky (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Like I said, spend as long as you want perfecting the thing in your sandbox. Then ask people here to review it. Some or perhaps even all of it may be considered preferable to the current article. - Sitush (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Sitush - There have been numerous people who have contributed to the article not just me. I've contributed the least. Just go through the history of the article. You seem to delete others contributions, rather than keep it and let others read it and improve on it. It seems I'm the only one whose English skills are good enough to argue my point across to you and argue the case out. Other Jadoon contributors seem to lack the English skills to argue their point and it ends up being a case of "you delete, they put up, you delete, they put up, etc." Therefore it looks as if its "my" article. Far From it. If you look at the article I keep on putting up, it was put together by some other author, who seems to have given up trying to improve it.
I only started to put this - and this is something we agree upon - not well written article up as a starting point. The problem is it's easier to delete it. The article needed a starting point.
I leave it to the "Jadoon Community of Writers" - if they all feel strongly about the article DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
What is really strange about your way of thinking about the writings of the 1800s and early 1900s is that Olaf Caroe relied heavily on them (he couldn't have written the book without them since it was published in circa 1957), and other authors of Pashtun tribes have relied heavily on them also - there would be no history on the Pashtun tribes without them!
Anyway, I leave it to the "Jadoon Community of Writers" to make the next move - I'm sure there are many there who can argue their points and write eloquently!Mulberry sky (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Move to "Jadoon (people)"
I moved the page to "Jadoon (people)", as throughout the article the people are referred to as Jadoon, and the article (unless I've misunderstood) is about the people. I've been asked to revert (and have done so), although I still propose that the page be moved. Can anyone clarify the article's intended subject please? Thanks, MrCrazyDude (talk) 16:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- The move, if any, should have been to Jadoon because we have no other usage of that title other than to refer to the people, and thus no need to specify "(people)". The correct title - Jadun, Jadoon, Jadaun etc - is dependent upon WP:COMMONNAME. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- You should also be aware that this edit reinstated a very poor prior version of the article that used unreliable sources such as those written by James Tod nearly 200 years ago. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- In that case, Sitush, do you agree at least with the need for standardisation across the article? I am only here as a copyeditor, trying to tidy up the article as best as possible. Again, apologies for any offence this may have caused, however from an outsider's perspective that is how it seems. There are barely any edits that are not being reverted by yourself. I only seek to resolve this issue to benefit the page! Thanks, and again, sorry for any offence, MrCrazyDude (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
- Having "done my homework" as you so aptly put it, it would appear that articles about this region are somewhat of a speciality of yours, so I will leave the article in your hands. I know when I've overdone it, and I am sorry for what I said. Please do, however, see what (if any) of the article content is usable, as some of the references were from other sources. Thanks, MrCrazyDude (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Removing fake and unreliable information
Hello, once again I have tried to fix this article by removing fake and unreliable/unreferenced material, bit a Bot keeps on adding it again. What to do? I shall edit again. Lets see. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)Col (r) Mumtaz Ali Khan
Sourcing and recent expansion
This book is self-published by someone called Jadoon via the CreateSpace platform and is therefore unreliable. Information from it formed the basis for these edits. Please read WP:SPS and note that caste-affiliated sources are not independent and therefore fail to meet the requirements of WP:V / WP:RS. Similarly for this, cited in this edit.
Books published by authors from the Raj era and earlier are also deemed to be unreliable and form a chunk of this edit, which also includes other dubious sources. I am going to have to gut the recent changes, which have taken the article back to the 12k or so size that it was some years ago prior to being cleaned up at that time. - Sitush (talk) 02:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)