User talk:Julliedon

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Raj sources

Hi, I am not sure how familiar you may be with sources from the Raj period. As a general rule, we do not use them and this has been shown time and again both on article talk pages and at venues such as WP:RSN. There are various reasons for this, including the problems of Sanskritisation, but the outcome tends to be the same every time: if the information is genuine and useful then some more modern source would state it. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm fully familiar with Raj sources and I know the issues. The thing is that this claim is a general claim by the tribe itself documented by the Brits. This is not a claim by some British historian or something like that. Moreover, this thing has been published over and over in recent times. This specific edition is a 2004 edition. Actually claims by the tribe of a similar nature by modern sources have been posted on this page but they have been taken out with absurd claims.I call it vandalism. This claim represents ethnography in its truest form and due to the whole idea of 'free flow of information' does belong there. Once again, this claim is not by a British person doing research.Julliedon (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. You say here that it is "scientific ethnography". It wasn't and that is the point: the only "scientific" aspects of those works was scientific racism which, as it would seem you know, has been discredited. Now, please self-revert before you get blocked for edit warring and perhaps even breach of the three revert rule. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal claim by some British historian or ethnographer. You pushed Lord Wikeley's personal claim in the 'Arain' article but this claim by the tribe itself, merely documented by the Brits is somehow not allowed? How so? This is documentation. This is an age-old claim by the tribe itself that they still claim to this very day. This is the flow of information that is cherished on wikipedia. Where's the racism in this straight-forward claim ? I have no idea why you are implying these things regarding the specific part we are discussing. I don't believe in scientific racism myself.Julliedon (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually remove Wikeley on sight (was he really a peer?). You may care to peruse my contribution history. Castes and tribes make many claims that we reject here: what Wikipedia cherishes is not mere "flow of information" but rather flow of information that is verifiable using reliable sources. This source, like most Raj sources, is not reliable. That it has been reprinted on numerous occasions merely reflects the market in caste glorification etc, not reliability. I've been doing this for years and, believe me, it has been tested time and again. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You included and reverted Wikeley for the 'Arain' article . That was a Brit's personal opinion. This is a historic claim by the tribe itself. The source itself clearly implies that this is precisely their opinion and that there's no way to figure out his ancestory. This is not this-or-that British historian making grandiose claims about one group or another. This is a historic claim by the tribe merely documented by the source, reprinted multiple times. This is simple documentation. Julliedon (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diff, please, for the Wikeley thing. For example, I suppose that his opinion might be valid as a professional soldier talking about a military matter in which he had involvement but it certainly would not be valid for general ethnography, which is why he is almost always removed from our articles.

"Simple documentation" does not suffice if the source itself is unreliable and known to have used poor source selection itself, as the one in question here has been shown to do. I think you might have a fundamental misunderstanding of how we operate and I urge you to (a) self-revert and (b) find a more modern recounting of the claim. Seriously, if it is significant then it will have been noted: the Rajputs are among the more documented communities. - Sitush (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] vs [2]

This is what you said for the 'Arain' article: 03:04, 8 February 2015‎ Sitush (talk | contribs)‎ . . (9,102 bytes) (+391)‎ . . (→‎British Raj period: while it is true that Wikeley is generally unreliable, that is because of his comments on ethnography unconnected to his military expertise: he shld be ok for this opinion) (undo | thank)

Now this part is somehow allowed. Why? How does one come to these conclusions that this section of a specific intellectual's contributions should be allowed and other parts not allowed. This is pretty relative as I've observed. How does one get the right to make these distinctions? And I know precisely how Wikipedia operates. Once again, even this specific thing about Porus being Janjua or Rajput has been posted here through other modern sources but you always find some fault in them. It's always something. Once again how's this particular documentative source 'unreliable' in this particular context if the source is not even making any grandiose PERSONAL claims but merely giving the general outline of that tribe's claims.Claims that have been made over hundreds of years and still done. Moreover, the source clearly mentions that there's no way to figure out his ancestory. Is that no objective enough? Personal claims of Wikeley were allowed but the claims of the members of the tribe merely documented by the Brits is not allowed? This is completely abusive. This is anti-thetical to the spirit of wikipedia. This is against the free-flow of information. This merely points to some claims and figures that were collected. This is not a personal claim by any Britisher himself. Even personal claims were allowed and actually included by you in the 'Arain' article.Julliedon (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read what you have quoted. My rationale at the Arain page is precisely the same as what I said about using Wikeley above on this page. You are wrong in your addition to the Janjua article, I am going to remove it per WP:BRD/WP:CONSENSUS and you should pursue dispute resolution if you wish to take the matter further. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]