Talk:Kulachi (tribe)

References

@Sitush Hi! here's the screenshot of the Dasti reference I was talking about before: https://imgur.com/ThzJqxL

You once mentioned a Wiki shortcut of a guideline on my talkpage or yamaguchi's which said we can't add opinions, but as you can see in the above reference which is used to prove Kulachi as only a Baloch tribe. It's an opinion. So isn't it a weak reference? Sir Calculus (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus We can't add our opinion. We can include opinions given in reliable sources, although we have to take into account WP:DUE. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus The image which you uploaded is irrelevant because it comes from a self-published source. Trafford Publishing is one of several big printing outfits who will essentially publish any book if the author or similar pays them. One of the tests of "reliability" is editorial oversight and, obviously, self-published writings don't meet the standard. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly my concern. That's why I wanted to show you, because someone kept reverting the article to the version with that reference. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Ah, OK. We agree then. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Btw, @Sitush the first reference in the current version of the article is not reliable as it's based on Raj source. The book's name is Biluchi Handbook, it's by Cecil Ernest Gladstone, printed in 1874. So can you remove it? Also since you removed my previous sources, I've found some new ones. Do you have any objections on them? Here are the sources:

1) This.

2) And this.

I think the first reference supports the second one nicely. Let me know whether I can add them or not. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus I can't see the source you mention as being based on Raj stuff but you may be misunderstanding. If a modern reliable source supports an older source, that is fine. Reliable academic sources, such as that one, are deemed to be written by experts, which is something that we are not. I would need to see the entire source to be sure & am not prepared to remove it unless I do. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I also cannot open the links you have posted! That is quite odd but I think you have perhaps incorrectly formatted them, at least for people using the app as I am doing. - Sitush (talk) 15:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush Hmmm. I copied them from my phone to laptop. Maybe that caused something.

Anyways, here's the fixed link without the search:

The ISBNs for it: 9789694050515, 9694050510.

If you are able to open it then search Kolachi inside the book. If you can't access it for some reason then here's the screenshot: [[1]]

Now for the second one, fixed link without the search:

Search "Kolachi Sindhi" inside the book. If you can't access it, then here's the screenshot: [[2]]

Let me know. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Found the first one via the isbn. I can't use that - we don't allow "snippet" views from Google Books etc. Got to be able to read at least a page or two before and after the relevant bit. - Sitush (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way: you should never search for terms like "kolachi sindhi". It is called confirmation bias. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush I am being asked to prove by Sutyarashi every single tribe in Sindhi tribes template. So of course I will use that keyword. How else am I supposed to find the text in the book that connects them? Sir Calculus (talk) 15:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus By reading books and papers properly? There is no rush. It really is a bad habit to cherry-pick rather than read thoroughly. Quite often, you will find that authors offer differing statements or provisos/qualifications on different pages, even different chapters. Certainly at undergraduate level here in the UK, you would be in big trouble if you did that, and there are plenty if archived discussions at WP:RSN etc where you will see the same point made. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush I am not cherry picking. Just to remind you. My version of the article mentioned Kolachi as both Sindhi & Baloch tribe. Using the Sindhi language references which you had removed. And the current book we are talking about is about Sindhi language & its Growth. So why would the author contradict himself later? He has clearly mentioned it. And the 2nd reference supports it. I am trying my best here man. I'm assuming good faith but you always bring something up against things I post. Even though the current book is published by the Institute of Sindhology. And is not even a RAJ book. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus I am saying that I can't see it. There is not much I can do. You could possibly remove it yourself but that probably isn't a great idea because I do think you're rather confused about quite a few things. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush How can I remove them when I haven't even added the two sources yet. Also, please answer clearly. Do you have an issue with the two references I posted or not? Because I need them to support the tribes template since you are not accepting RAJ sources. These are the closest references I could find that are not related to RAJ and are modern and reliable and are not self-published. Please let's not drag this any longer brother. Especially when it's reliable. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Yes, I have an issue with them. I have explained it.

You were wanting me to remove a source. I refused.

Are you deliberately trying to appear silly? It is quite odd. - Sitush (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush you responded to a text where I was talking about the other references. Not about the source I wanted you to remove. Kindly check again. Also, you have an issue with them because you can't see it? That's a you problem. Not Wikipedia's. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay then don't view through the snippet views. Buy the book or get it from some online library. You should have access to Wikipedia library since you are an admin or atleast extended confirmed. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus It isn't in the Wikipedia Library, as far as I can see. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Then why am I made to suffer then? I posted the exact page number. The exact quotation. The year. The publisher. Everything in my capability? I submitted my case. Even the text supports it. And in case you think I am trying to pov push. I am not. I want the article to be neutral. You can include both Baloch and Sindhi. I would have no objections. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Snippet view", man if you don't want to read then don't nobody is forcing you, but atleast check the resource and why are you complaining?

The sources comply with WP:RS, aren't you happy? Starkex (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush About the RAJ source, I am not misunderstanding as I viewed the full page & searched the reference. You are free to check it yourself. It clearly mentions the author and also in the Raj book, there is no mention of Kolachi too or that tribes thingy. Hence it's unreliable. So that's why I am concerned. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Already told you I can't see it. - Sitush (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I will post a full view of the page to help you see, be right back. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. Here you can clearly see it mentions the raj author's book. [[3]] Sir Calculus (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Nothing to see. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I can't figure out what's being discussed here but the link posted by Sir Calculus is to a book published by the University of Naples and appears to be a WP:RS. FWIW, the page linked here contains a reference to a Kalochi tribe of Baluchs. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark Yes, it is a good source. But as you can see on my user talk page. They have an issue with sources that come from British raj period. This WP:RAJ.

  Btw, the discussion is about me restoring the article with different references. Since the past ones were reverted by Sitush. The Kolachi in Sindh identify as Sindhis & speak Sindhi as their mother tongue. For which I have provided two references. Can you check them and give your thoughts? They are in the reflist below. The 1st one is by Allana, the other is Sind Quarterly. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus: I'm not keen to get into this but I took a look and neither looks to be usable. The Allana reference says that the Kolachi speak Sindhi but (since I can just see a few lines) it doesn't tell us if they are referring to the tribe or to something else (for e.g., there appears to be a Kolachi village in Sind). Similarly, the Sind Quarterly reference merely states that someone with the last name "Kolachi" is associated with a Sindhi Women's Association. Again, not an association with the tribe. You should probably look for a clear reference that says that the Kolachi tribe is both Sindhi as well as Baluch. My suggestion is that you consider creating an article for the village in Sind, or, if there are other sources, perhaps an article Kolachi (Sindhi surname)--RegentsPark (comment) 20:31, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark It's not talking about the village Kolachi. It's talking about the tribes. There are other tribes mentioned besides Kolachi in that same line. And the word use is settled, and more clearly it is also written "All these races speak Sindhi as their mother tongue".

The 2nd reference would just act as a supporting reference.

And regarding the Sindhi and Baloch thing. In the previous version of the article which was edited by me I added that Kolachi is a tribe both in Sindhis & in Balochs. I never removed the Baloch part. And here I want to do the same thing. "Kolachi is a Sindhi and a Baloch tribe, based in the Pakistani Provinces of Sindh and Balochistan." That would help maintain the neutrality of the article and would also help me at my other involvement with Sutyarashi. Sir Calculus (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus nb: "races" seems like an odd choice of word in this context. - Sitush (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus I still can't see the source but nowhere in the quote you have provided does it say that they "identify as Sindhis" (your words, above). If I speak Sindhi, am I a Sindhi? Does my ability to speak French make me French? Or my ability to speak Ancient Greek make me a rare survivor of a civilisation which ended many centuries ago?

It is confusing and, frankly, I'd rather see all these mentions of linguistic identity in Pakistan removed from all articles because they add nothing & cause massive disputes between the various Pakistani editors here. To an outsider like me, it just seems ridiculous: anyone can speak any language they choose to learn & some by default speak more than one from birth. - Sitush (talk) 03:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush By your own logic. You were wrong at Daudpotra then. Because the reference Sutyarashi provided nowhere said they identified as Punjabis. Here what I have provided it clearly states "Mother tongue". So don't try to act silly on purpose. Sindhi is an ethno-linguistic identity. We have african origin clans & other too. And we all accept them as Sindhis. If you didn't know that. Then read Sindhis. Also again, mother tongue means first language, the language one speaks since they were born. And it's the language of their parents. And if you have a problem with that. Then check out the official Pakistani census to clear your confusion. And avoid WP:PERSONAL just because you are an outsider doesn't mean you can disrespect other cultures. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus You are deflecting again and engaging in speculation. I assume from this that you cannot in fact see sufficient of that source. I will remove it in an hour or so. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

How is that deflecting? I told you how the official Pakistani census works to further remove your confusion. And reminded you that Sindhi is an ethno-linguistic identity. Sindhis cannot change that just because some outsider calls it all "ridiculous". Sir Calculus (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus this is getting ridiculously long, and the main reason behind this is that Sitush is being overly patient with you. Now it is proved that you don't have any regard for whatever he says, you don't have regards for what RegentsPark wrote and obviously not for me either. Now the only way for you is to go to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and ask the editors there whether you can use the disputed sources or not. Till they approve this, you can't add them back. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi We both dislike long arguments. What Sitush is doing is unethical. RegentsPark still hasn't responded yet to my latest comment. I provided an academic source. Now if you still have a problem with that source. Here's another source. Let me know what you think. And here you can see, it calls them "Sindhi" tribes because of their centuries old assimilation into Sindh. [[4]] Sir Calculus (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Sir Calculus the Dawn doesn't call Kulachi as Sindhi, though it does refer to Mai Kulachi as a Baloch woman. Now I know you will not believe whatever Sitush or I write, so just go to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and discuss the sources there, this may avoid our time being wasted. Sutyarashi (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Read "Just in case you are wondering how a ‘Baloch’ woman’s village can be named in Sindhi, many Sindhi tribes, such as Jatoi, Zardari, Lashari and Magsi, whose mother tongue is now Sindhi, are descendants of some Baloch tribes who had settled in Sindh centuries ago." It acts as a supporting reference to the reference currently being disputed. I have provided 2 references to support that one reference. Which is more than enough. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

And regarding Mai Kolachi. It is disputed whether the story is even true or not as there are many versions of it. And also the oldest record is from 1729. Which doesn't mention any Mai Kolachi who established Kolachi jo goth. @Sutyarashi Sir Calculus (talk) 09:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It mentions Jatoi, Zardari, Lashari and Magsi as Sindhi tribes of Baloch descent, but nowhere Kulachi. And I've already told you where to go. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It mentions why the village is named like that. And also mentions "many Sindhi tribes", then says "such as". Now do I need to explain more on that? What such as implies? And I already mentioned that this references acts as a supporting reference. The main reference is still the one that mentions Kolachis. Still. Here's another reference. But you will also reject it won't you? Sir Calculus (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Census is WP:PRIMARY. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus How is a book published in 2002 by a modern writer falling foul of WP:RAJ? I certainly haven't said that it is. - Sitush (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Because it is based on Raj. @Sitush and you said we can't add sources based on RAJ. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus No, I didn't. I said that we cannot use Raj era sources. I have explained this to you on several occasions now. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush Okay. Fine then. Can I use a non-raj era sindhi language source which is reliable? I predict NOT. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus You have been told before, by me and Girth Summit, that non-English sources are OK, although English ones are to be preferred where possible. So I have no idea why you're still insinuating that Sindhi would be a problem.

The issue actually are:

1. Your ability to determine whether a source meets WP:RS (and do remember that you have been told that pre-Raj sources are useless here)

2. What you want to use it for

3. Whether people can see sufficient of it, even if that means you temporarily uploading images perhaps - you don't have a stellar reputation at the moment, unfortunately, so I or others might ask for this

4. Whether you will be paraphrasing what the author says about the Raj era source or using the book as a proxy to get the Raj source into the article here. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I can post the full images of them as I have complete access to them. And it's not just one book. It's many. Btw, I have just now posted another English language source in the current discussion in my response to Sutyarashi. It further supports my current reference. Let me know what you think. I already know what you'll say. But still. Let me know. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus Any chance of you listing them here as a starting point? Title, author, year, publisher, isbn if there is one. If they're post-1950 (say), published by an academic press, written by someone independent then it's a start and we can look at what you want to use them for. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

• @RegentsPark the sources that the user @Sir Calculus are compliant with the Wikipedian policy of WP:RS which deals with reliable academic sources and as you can see that they are books published by renown institutes of the region hence I don't know what fuss is here, and it is also compliant with WP:CON policies, so the objections of users like Sitush and Sityurashi are biased, furthermore if you want to include a third-party opinion here then most welcome, do it.

  I hope you understand now. Starkex (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Starkex My problem is that I can't see the sources & Sir Calculus is clearly on a mission at various articles, which experience tells me will likely end badly. I don't actually give a damn whether a group is Baloch, Sindhi, Zulu, Inuit or Martian. Please stop mischaracterising. - Sitush (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush That was offensive. I am not on a mission. I have edited in other areas too. Stop kindly avoid false accusations, as it is hurtful. But you do seem on a mission, a mission to reject every reliable source from me even academic ones. If you cannot see it. It's not wikipedia's fault. I provided the exact page number. It is according to WP:RS. Btw, you still haven't removed Daudpotra 5th ref. Because you can't "see it". It requires removal. So go now. Don't be selective. Unless of course you want to be biased. Sir Calculus (talk) 08:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus Can you see at least that full page, the one preceding it & the one following it? If you can't then you should not be using the source.

  I have to assume good faith regarding historic citations, many of which will have been put in place by contributors who are no longer active. I have every right, however, to query a new citation provided by an active contributor & in particular when I am concerned that the contributor might be swayed by a desire to promote a particular line and is naive regarding how we do things on Wikipedia. Being relatively new here is fine - we all were once - but it is not a free pass. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush You are free to check them yourself. Through any library near you or an online library. Assume good faith of others? It's your one friend Sutyarashi. You haven't removed his added 5th reference even though we BOTH can't see it. Not even a snippet view. You aren't concerned about anything. You seem to have a vendetta towards a certaim group as shown by your repetitive insults. Calling other culture ridiculous etc. I provided you everything, and the source is according to WP:RS. You don't like it? Your problem. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus See WP:PACT. The burden is on you, not me, and it is increasingly clear from your avoidance here that you don't have sufficient access to that source. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  I can say the same. See WP:PACT. I'm not going to visit the Institute of Sindhology or the University of Michigan to prove my point. I have provided everything, including the page no. You being against WP:RS is your problem. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus If you haven't seen much of the source, you haven't proven your point. I note that you are still refusing to say that you are relying on more than the snippet view. That is my concern, nothing else. - Sitush (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Starkex If all you & Sir Calculus can see of the Allana source is a snippet view, like RegentsPark, then the source should not be used because it lacks context. This has been discussed time and again at venues such as WP:RSN. It's a really bad idea to rely on snippet views & no undergraduate course would accept it.

  Your repeated mentions of RS, CON and 3O, here and elsewhere, are utterly irrelevant to the matter & I'm increasingly of the view that either you haven't fully read those pages or you don't understand them. - Sitush (talk) 03:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  The source doesn't lack context. The book's name is literally "The Origin and Growth of Sindhi Language".

  Growth is the context here. Then further context is given in p.231 where the author mentions some specific tribes and talks about them settling "for the last many centuries". Now if you don't know what settling is I can provide a definition. And one century equals to one-hundred years. Then he goes on to say. "All these races speak Sindhi as their mother tongue". Now I don't need to explain mother to you. do I? The context is all given. So stop your assumptions. I said the same thing you are saying now at Daudpotra but you had then rejected it even though it didn't prove a connection, but since it was a reference by Sutyarashi, it was okayed. But here what I have posted is an academic source which proves the connection. If you can't see the full page. It is not my problem. I don't care whether you buy a subscription for an online library or go visit Michigan yourself. I have already proved the source is according to WP:RS. Sir Calculus (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus You are avoiding the issue as per usual. Write as many screeds as you like, I will still remove the statement unless you address the concern. - Sitush (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. Just wow. I just addressed you above. But you are still saying I haven't addressed it? It's according to WP:RS. And sadly for you, WP:RS isn't going to change, so get yourself familiarized with Wikipedia, Sir! Sir Calculus (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Starkex if you or SirCalculus ever accused me of "Bias" again without giving any serious thought to it, I will surely bring this issue to ANI. Seriously, around a half dozen editors, most of whom have atleast a decade of editing experience, are telling you and Calculus to avoid unreliable sources and still here you're, bombarding them with random lines like having bias.The only purpose of Calculus on wikipedia seems to prove certain people as Sindhi, and for this, he doesn't even give any regard to what WP policies or editors say.

  WP:ONUS is upon you to prove that cited snippet view is reliable and can be used, otherwise I don't see any reason to keep it in the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sutyarashi Stop accusing me of false things mister! WP:PERSONAL.

  That's hurtful and offensive. I never try to "prove" certain people as Sindhi. I add additional information and make the article neutral and support that with reliable references. The current source I mentioned is academic and is according to WP:RS. I followed that WIKI POLICY. Now stop with your bias of a certain group and stop with the false accusations. Sir Calculus (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus you should read what WP:PERSONAL states before accusing me of Bias. Do you really think Sitush, RegentsPark, me, and all other editors you had dispute with before, have any personal bias against you? Sutyarashi (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  Oh, don't bring RegentsPark in this discussion. He hasn't responded to my comment yet where I have addressed it all. Yes Sitush seems to have a personal bias with me. Read WP:BULLY. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus As you have been told several times, there is no deadline & certainly you need to wait more than a few hours. We are volunteers.

  Just back on the snippet view thing: go to WP:RSN and use the search box there to search for "snippets". You will get results such as this. Since you still haven't confirmed that you can see more than the snippet view, I am now removing that source. - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can't see it? Not my problem. I mentioned everything. Sir Calculus (talk) 09:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush Okay. I'm back with the "context" you were worried about in that ref. Here it is: [5]

  It's academic. It's not British Raj. It's not from the 90's. If you want I can also send you the publisher's note about the book. Sir Calculus (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus Can you see more than a snippet view? That is the crux of the issue and has been throughout. Perhaps you can reformat the links you tried to post some days ago also, bearing in mind the suggestion I made on your talk page regarding how to do so. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  I am actually increasingly of the opinion that all these ethnic claims in Pakistan-related articles are a waste of time and not particularly informative. People move around & in moving they assimilate aspects of the region in which they come to reside - language, cuisine, dress etc. If we can state with certainty a place of origin for a tribe then we can say something like "is a tribe thought to have originated in X", and we can even sometimes say that a substantial number moved to Y in the Zth century. But to say that those in Y are of Y ethnicity, rather than X ethnicity, really adds nothing and confuses much.

  It is essentially a truism that over centuries an incoming group, whether a single family or a mass migration, will adopt most of the manners, traditions and customs of the area in which they settle. - Sitush (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush Yes I can see more than a snippet view now. I'm going to add the new reference in the article which is a link to the full pdf of the book. And I will also add a quotation. Sir Calculus (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus OK, although I am seriously thinking of proposing we abandon the whole idea, as per my last message above. It is a nonsense and a huge time-sink. - Sitush (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush honestly man, you're one of the most patient editors around here. Anyways, I don't think your time consumption is going to bear any fruit, that is why I gave up earlier. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sutyarashi My patience is wearing thin. I am thinking of asking for a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush there are multiple objections over sources added by SirCalculus on Daudpotra and Sanjrani too, with which they haven't bothered to engage. What do you think about those articles? Sutyarashi (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sutyarashi Which ones? We've already been over Sanjrani and it was decided that a new article for Sindhi Sanjrani will be created because there are more than enough references to separate them. It's been more than a week there has been no talk of another article still. And regarding Daudpotra, what objections do you have over a reliable source which is also used in other academic sources? @Sitush I'm sorry but you just can't ban everyone you disagree with over reliable references and your instance of misreading a source has also been noted at Kulachi tribe article. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus I can't ban anyone. You misrepresent what I said (again). I've lost track of how many people you have had to apologise to. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush You have mentioned indefinite blocks, topic bans multiple times. Is it false? Sir Calculus (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus No, and you know it isn't because you mentioned seeing your mate Starkex being sanctioned only yesterday. Out of interest, do you know Starkex in real life? You seem often to edit around the same time, on similar subjects and in support of each other, so maybe students together. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sitush That's a pretty wild accusation. It is already mentioned on my userpage that what topics I am interested in. Both Starkex and I live in Pakistan which is mentioned on our userpages. So please stop with the accusations. Please stop with the personal attacks. This is very disrespectful. And it hurts a positive environment. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus It was a question, not an accusation Please stop pinging me - I will not be responding. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  You assumed & implied something @Sitush. I defended myself. And it was you who pinged me. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  If you want to create separate article for Sindhi Sanjrani, sure, go ahead. And you haven't engaged with Doudpotra's talk page, though you were quick to revert when some editor removed your added claim. Also, it's not like Sitush is talking about ban on the very early stages, he's been busy fruitlessly with you since last month. I'm not patient like him, so I just gave up as I told you before. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sutyarashi Please let @Sitush and I deal with our discussions. You keep escalating it with your unnecessary comments. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus I am not discussing with you any further, SC. Had enough of time-wasting, going round in circles etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sir Calculus escalating? That's funny. Do you even realize how many things you have escalated by just arguing over and over again? Anyways, WP pages are not owned by anyone, so I can comment on them. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Sutyarashi Please stop. I'm not saying WP pages are owned by anyone. I don't want to argue. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

References

World Placenames

Modern dictionary sources really should not need quoting in the article - they aren't usually open to interpretation or otherwise contentious. So I removed the ridiculous quote needed tag that was recently added. However, to put an end to this repeated display of bad faith, the source says: "Said to take its name from the Kulachi, a Balochi tribe; however, it has also been suggested that the name comes from Kalachi, a tribal chief or, less likely, a humble fisherman who lived in the area."

As you will note, our article says may take it name from Kulachi, not does. There is no need to give the variant origins in this article, although they would be valid at Karachi.

Becoming very fed up of this time-wasting. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush It seems you like to rush a lot. I added the quotation tag because I couldn't view the source you had added. Not even a snippet view. WP:VER

Also, kindly stop removing content. I updated the link with a full pdf doc of the book which you can also view, so you don't start saying snippet view. Also, I added a quote. And you have added Some now live in Sindh and speak the Sindhi language. It's not what it says in the quote, the quote is talking about Balochistan. Specifically mentioning "Sindhi races" separately from Brahui, Baloch & Pathans. Then goes on to name Sindhi tribes, starts from "Abra" and then mentions "Settled there for the last many centuries", he's talking about Balochistan, settled in Balochistan. Not Sindh. Kindly at least read what it says instead of speedily removing content. Be neutral. Also please read WP:VOICE. Thanks.

And yeah, I also have more references about Kolachi Jats. Sir Calculus (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus That's a good catch. I misread it. Will remove completely as it is clearly a fringe viewpoint when so many sources say Baloch origin. - Sitush (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush What do you mean it's fringe? It's an academic source, not even from the 90s. A detailed one. Which you can fully read as it's linked. It is also a secondary source and has references mentioned in detail in the last chapter. So your objections are invalid. Actually read references. Don't rush. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Girth Summit As you can see @Sitush is unnecessarily causing trouble here.

I made a promise few weeks ago that I will prove that snippet view. And now I have done that yet he is still refusing it. Kindly check [6] It's the first reference in that version of the article. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus all higher quality sources seem to agree that Kulachi is a Baloch tribe. Now, it's possible that some of its members moved to Sindh and also spoke Sindhi, but it doesn't mean that whole tribe can be labelled as Sindhi now. You're pushing unnecessary POV here and, quite honestly, just wasting time of other editors. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Please stop your assumptions. I'm not labelling a whole tribe as Sindhi. I'm adding that a Sindhi tribe exists as well. The source I posted is high quality and is recent, not older than 2000's. And it's not talking about some members who moved to Sindh. Kindly read the source in the previous version of the article, I updated it, you can view the full doc. I'm not pushing any POV, but you are suppressing neutrality. I'm presenting both viewpoints and it's not minor, it's an academic reference. Stop wasting mine and your time over arguing for no reason. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus What you promised was to go edit non-tribal articles for a while so you would gain a better grounding of how things work before getting involved in a notoriously difficult topic area that has been a graveyard for many a new contributor. Instead, you can't leave it alone, have breached numerous policies & guidelines, claimed other editors are racist etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush I gained experience. Learned some things. Now have you seen me using RAJ era sources? Also, whenever I have been made aware by others, I have stopped doing things like what you call "breaching". Even recently just 20 mins ago, I restored the Abro article back to the surname list. I have been using reliable and academic sources now for every article I edit. And that discussion at ANI is closed. I retracted my comments and issued a sincere apology. So please stop escalating this any further. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

You've pinged me above, but I don't see anything approaching Sitush 'unnecessarily causing trouble' here. I think that the last time we spoke, I advised you to listen to what Sitush has to say - they are an enormously experienced and talented Wikipedian. If I was editing an article that was within Sitush's area of interest, and Sitush told me that they had problems with a source I had used, I would start from the assumption that they were probably correct, ask what the problems were, and put myself into 'listen and learn mode'. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Except he rejects every source. Even the academic ones. Like the one I posted in the link I shared with you. So it is "unnecessary". Sir Calculus (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sir Calculus It is a view wildly out of sync with other sources both in its geographical claim and its terminology ("races" rather than "tribes"). - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sitush The author calls tribes as Sindhi races. Not Race. So it is evident he is talking about tribes, especially so when he goes on to say the tribe names. A single person can't be "race". And it's not just a single source, there are other sources as well about Kolachi Jats which I can post but they are in Sindhi language. So the current one is better especially since it's from a reputed academic source, has references for every sentence at the end of the book. And a publisher's word is also included, so you can check if you have doubts. Most importantly it respects WP:RS. So all your objections are invalid here. Sir Calculus (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)