Jump to content

User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Don't test our patience

You had recently added in the etymology section that the meaning of the word Nayar is Dog (Naaya in Tamil). Works by SN Sadasivan are full of anti-Nair propaganda and even you will acknowledge this. If you are going to repeat this blatant caste hatred, I am going to ANI. So far we have remained more or less silent, even though you had added a lot of biased stuff. But this is going too far. If you repeat anything like this, then we are not going to remain silent. Shannon1488 (talk) 10:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Digging into primary sources yourself is OR, and further trying to "prove a negative" isn't terribly helpful, as since unless you read every single line in Jatinirnayam, and can ensure that you version is totally complete, you can't prove that Sadirnayam didn't find that quote in some version of the text. Further, for a centuries-old document "what page number" isn't a reasonable request. If you have objections to S.'s quote (again, not a personal statement of his beliefs, but a cite to an early text), bring up reasonable objections on Talk. "He's a Nazi" is not a reasonable objection. "He's a fraud/casteist/convert" is only an objection if you can provide articles from reputable researchers stating "S. is not a reputable researcher." Barring that, it's just your word against his, and he's a published academic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair citations

Hi, you filled out some more of those old citations a few hours ago. Could you actually see the pages for the GBooks ones, eg: cite # 98 ? I cannot over here in the UK as it is snippet view only (or even nothing at all, in some cases), but I know that sometimes peeps in the US can see more. I ask because there are some that I would like to check, and at least one where I enquired on the talk page for a copy/check but got nowhere.

I am a bit wary of these publications from 1903 etc but sometimes it is awkward to pursue other channels without some sort of decent hook line to search with. - Sitush (talk) 04:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries, can you see the following .png [1] taken as a screencap? Note at the end the two comments I couldn't manage to substantiate but left as hiddens in case anyone else had some good leads. I am finding myself being very careful about anything that could conceivably be construed as negative, given how much ire it provokes. I reckon we can knock out a lot of the less-controversial stuff early and save at least some of the fight for later. I haven't seen any pushback on my additions about military history (was bracing for upsetness about any mention of the Nair fighting for the Portuguese, Nair converts, etc.) Haven't seen any blowback on diet, or supernatural. I'll try to take a look at "attire" later, though not sure I'm going to find any good refs. I'm almost inclined to just mark it "cn" but not delete, since it's not particularly edgy material, but the format is a bit clumsy. I am rather vexed that the dozens of folks who've shown up to kvetch couldn't be bothered to expand or footnote the non-controversial sections like Diet, etc. But I suppose it is far easier to curse the darkness than to light a single candle... MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Last things first, if you look at the contribution histories for those who have not recently signed up then you will note that many if not all of them have extremely high talk page figures cf article page figures. That says it all, especially bearing in mind that they can actually write perfectly ok English & so they have no reason to be shy of contributing in a positive manner. We are not going to get any help from them now regarding sources on the Nair article: their ringleader has told us that, several times. But I will continue to ask, nonetheless. You have done some great stuff there of late; it is certainly much appreciated by me.
Screencap. Yes, I can see it. I also noticed that in this instance you had the option to download as a PDF, which means that it could be emailed or whatever. I'll have to sift through the stuff that needed checking, compile a list and put it up at WP:RX - see if anyone is prepared to grab what is available and dump it somewhere that I can collect from. Many of these old works (Travancore State Manual, Census etc) appear time and again in Indian articles & so if I can get the PDFs then that would be better still, since the PDF is the entire document & not merely a single page. Thanks for taking the time to prove a point.
I notice that you had previously appealed for some extra eyes at the INDIA project and, seemingly, got none. It does not bode well for trying again but as with my belief that I should continue to ask for copies of sources where I need them, so too I think that asking the project again is something that should be done. We are then at least continuing to demonstrate our willingness to collaborate etc. - Sitush (talk) 05:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
It is rather vexing, their complete unwillingness to just play this straight. I don't know if it's a cultural gap, or just partisan blindness, or what, but it's amazing that they can list out dozens of cites "proving" Nair are Kshatriya, when most of them (and the most reputable ones) say nothing of the sort in the exact bit they're quoting on the page. A lot of the ANI folks seemed, if implicitly, on "our" side in this, but they were vague enough that I think the POV-pushers will act like it's a "everyone is equally overstepping" as opposed to "a couple folks are occasionally a little snippy or blunt... and 25 others just keep being negative, not doing any work, and announcing their unwillingness to to allow any WP:IDONTLIKEIT in." I'll file a WPINDIA request later, and though I'll scrupulously avoid canvassing I will note how emotional this is getting, and how popular a page Nair is (even prior to this drama getting 15K hits a month). There's always the POV Noticeboard too; I would imagine that some editors specialising in POV-prevention could have a field day here if we can get their ears to perk up.
Oh, BTW, feel free to ping me for whatever caps/pdfs of stuff Americans can get on gBooks. It's no trouble, and you're putting in a ton of work. I'll try to round out Diet in the next few days, and take a stab at Attire. Then I'll wander back to MilHist, maybe do a little about religion, but I'm not as comfy covering general history, or varna issues, given that I'm not a SIndia guy. Speaking of which, one of my major "problematic but can be salvaged" Maratha editors just popped back up, so I need to work with him some. And, saints be praised, the single most hostile and "barracks lawyer"-y Maratha POV pusher hasn't been seen in weeks, for which I am infinitely grateful, as it's allowed me to get a ton done at Yadav. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The article comes off PP in a couple of hours but I'll be in bed by then, hopefully - not slept for nearly 24 hours. AN/I is an odd place, I find. Unfortunately, my name gets dragged in there quite frequently. However, the page-protecting admin did have this to say, and I know him to be of the "firm but fair" nature. He'll most likely be quite diligent in keeping an eye on things, real life permitting.
Our paths have crossed once or twice on Ezhava/Yadav etc & I would like to do a bit more there, but I have another big row looming at Tamil Kshatriya as the "common sense" contingent move towards deleting the entire article on the grounds that it is about a subject that does not exist! I did all the source mediation work for that dispute but I'll guarantee it will kick off again.
I got a barnstar a few hours ago, relating to another subcontinent "mess". I think that the wording in it says it all for people in our situation. It applies as much to you as to me (apart from perhaps the "booting the baddie" bit, which was a reference to a SPI I filed).
Will bear the pinging offer in mind, thank you very much. Off to bed. - Sitush (talk) 06:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

So far as WPINDIA, for me personally I have yet to get any negative results from asking for help there. I've had plenty of times I got some good advice/cites but no action on the page in question, plenty of times I got no response at all, but a few times that folks provided some great help. Also, though I can't attribute this precisely, after stating some of my troubles in caste articles I saw a sharp increase in watchlisters reverting POV pushing on Kunbi/Kurmi/Maratha articles. They could've been folks drawn to the page from other "edit war alert" listings, but at least a couple I recognised as WPINDIA folks. That's been a great help in blocking the kind of petty/clumsy POV-pushing (leaving all my cites in place but literally just changing "Shudra" to "Kshatriya" wholesale). It is interesting to me that, in almost all the caste articles I've messed with, despite vocal people demanding change nobody ever seems able to actually step in and prove their POV statements, and 90% of the time aren't capable of following the very basic "request change" on locked pages. No matter how many times you say "let me know what sentence you want changed, and what your citation is" most can't do any better than "XYZ is wrong! You must fix this! Check out www.mycasteisamazing.com and educate your ignorant self!" I do find it particularly amusing that you and I (admittedly not PhD Indiologists ourselves) are being told that we "know nothing about India" when we cite PhDs, and told that we "don't even understand the words Kshatriya and Shudra" when we refuse to accept apply OR to "this caste fought in some wars".

It'll be slow in coming, and I really am not up to that fight anytime in the next couple months, but someday I'd love to see Rajput tackled. It's inclusions actually aren't bad (I and a couple others did some basic cleanup of some poorly-sourced claims last fall), but it has some glaring omissions regarding the Rajput having been one of many out-caste groups that got pulled into varna in later centuries, and became ersatz Kshatriya simply because they made good troops and troops were needed. I also note that the Rajputs are well known for agriculture, and no mention of the sort appears in the article.

You may be amused by this American parallel: the joke is phrased in various ways, but goes something like "the reason we lost in Vietnam is because everybody's uncle who served there was either a sniper or a helicopter door gunner." The angle being that nobody's old veteran uncle ever sits around with a beer spinning yarns about being a truck driver, administrative clerk, or cook in the Army. A bit further off the mark, but I always liked the Irish joke about the 1916 Easter Rising: "Why did they build the General Post Office so big? So everyone's granddad could fit inside." MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nair clothing

I've been doing some research into the upper cloth controversy (Nair women, bare above waist, then laws were introduced). There is an article specifically for it but it is not great. If you do not pick up on it during your "attire" work then I will add some bumpf about it. Still trawling through histories at the moment, and trying to work out how to avoid repetition between that and the Military section (which is much improved, thanks). - Sitush (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries; again, as an ex-mil guy and an ethnology guy, I'm far more comfortable covering milhist, superstition (which CarTick did admirably and has gone unchallenged), attire, food, etc. (I do wish I could find a better cite for the mice thing; it's certainly colourful!). I'm also wincing in anticipation of "OMG you can't say the Nair woman went topless!!!" as I expand the clothing section, or "it is shameful to discuss a proper lady's undergarments." I'm honestly not trying to find "derogatory" material, but a huge portion of what I find that is at all interesting/educational is stuff that I imagine folks are going to balk at. Aside from the Nair kicking tail in some wars, and being higher than some poor picked-on peasants (both of which I've added as applicable), most of their interesting stuff is "deviation" from norms, kind of like everybody else. You can only get so much cultural distinctness from "they like lentils." I expected more blowback on milhist, especially on their fighting alongside the Portuguese, having some converts, etc. Honestly, 90% of the whole kerfuffle revolves around a)Kshatriya/Shudra, b) incredibly well-documented polyandry c) the infamous "dog" cite. I'm pleasantly surprised that there hasn't been much flack about the rest of the article.
The article is just getting better and better (if a bit long); are you looking to put this in for some higher-echelon article rating once the dust settles? I could see this hitting GA-class if we can get a GOCE guy to drop in, maybe get some outside parties to smooth out transitions in the text that we overlook from screen-blindness but would be choppy to a new reader. I got an old B&W photo of the Nair Brigade I'll try and add (though it has someone's digital caption on it, but I don't think that adds any copyright claim since it's not a substantive addition), and I'll poke around for a few more historical images. I think this could end up being an awesome article that will really inform the 15,000 readers a month this gets. Kudos! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I would like to think that any article that I contribute to significantly has the potential for GA but so far have only nominated three. It is long, but there is much to be said and the forks that exist are next to worthless. In fact, later on, I shall probably boldly redirect some of those forks. Unless I am losing the plot, the interesting stuff that you highlight is precisely why the story needs to be presented in one place. It seems to me to be rather difficult to treat it otherwise and still give the community (WP and the Nairs) the assembly that it deserves. But I could be wrong.
All my "significant" articles are long. I am a sourcing sort of guy & it tends to lead me into the byways. This one will actually lose a little of its original content to counter some of what we have added. I am crap at writing ledes, though.
It will need a fair amount of polishing and you are right about screen-blindess, although I usually resolve that by walking away for a couple of weeks. Not sure what GOCE means. For photo copyright issues, I have a very helpful contact at Commons but User:Moonriddengirl is excellent even though her primary interest is text copyright. Not sure how much time she has available at the mo because she has just started working for WMF, but there is no harm in asking. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Guild of copyeditors, they're real geeks for proofing. Unfortunately/naturally/fortunately, they don't even touch content, they just fine-tune existing text. I'm not sure if they do any continuity or de-chopping work, I think they just do fine details, but we should be able to work up some kind of labour exchange with a non-India-topic editor to get him to do a smooth-job in exchange for either of us doing a mission for him. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

... and off we go again

See this. I have reverted twice, so it would not be clever for me to do so again. They have not produced one shred of evidence to support the kshatriya claim. I have even reviewed the first 20-odd sources provided by Shannon. The article they are linking to has been in my sights for a while but, hey, I'd rather not spread my fire too widely in one burst. - Sitush (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

GBooks query

Can you see the article which includes page 22 of this journal on GBooks? Is it possible to grab a PDF? - Sitush (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I just have Snippet. What's the keyword? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It is from the lead - "The Samoothiri Raja was a Samanthan Nair and the kingdom of the Ali Rajas of Kannur, which was the only Muslim kingdom in the Kerala region, also had Nair origins". We need the context here, so snippet is no use. I am fed up of caste-ists taking things out of context by using that view, eg: it doesn't show the first part of a sentence beginning, say, "It is claimed that ..."
I am inclined to bin the entire paragraph in any event, as being undue weight/too POVvy for the lead. If something turns up then we can always find an appropriate place for it in the body. I doubt that it is necessary as the history & social organisation sections are gradually expanding to include the general arrangements. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I have no objections to canning the whole mini-para. I had likewise thought it seemed a bit "leading" to have it placed so prominently. And, of course, burden of proof is on the includer. The peanut gallery seems to have calmed down, and a few local folks with constructive opinions have shown up, so that's great. Sodabottle also linked me in to a good pic for the "Supernatural" section, so I'll add that. If I get a spare moment this weekend I'll aim to add some more anthropology pics to show attire, houses, temples, etc. Still really want a pic of a festival dinner-table, and now that a few locals are participating I'll see if any of them can grab a pic next time they're over at grandma's house. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
EDIT: I would however cut-paste the contested para verbatim into Talk, just in case someone later does stumble across a ref. Google is adding more books every hour; the pickup in gBooks hits I've seen even in just a year of leaning on that source has been impressive. BTW, do you use RefTag (http://reftag.appspot.com) to format your gBooks refs, or some other tool? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I can code a book cite faster by hand than by using Reftag etc. And they're more likely to agree to WP:MOS guidelines. You might notice that I have started nitpicking on some stuff. This is primarily for consistency, without which it will be a real struggle to get GA at any point in the future. I have no idea if you have ever been through the GAN process before but in any event, no need to panic about it. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Khattak page

Hi Matthew,

About the Khattak page. The Contents are too long and I know how to fix it. A major part of its length is due to the tribal sub clans. It can easily be corrected by creating a table for the super-tribe>sub tribe and so on. However, this does not mean you should delete hard worked and well referenced research. You deleted major portions of some pains taking research material for which I had provided genuine references. It came from the work of not just myself but many researchers at the Peshawar University and in Afghanistan and the US. Please do not delete this. It was painful to watch it being deleted. You and I might not be Afghan historians or Ph.D scholars but the people who had worked on it are. Please respect their research about themselves backed by a multitude of scholars, western and otherwise. I feel, my words have not been very pleasant, I apologize. However, as I said, all this awkward content length can easily be corrected by creating a tribal table, like the one on the page Afghan Tribes under Afridi.

Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand

Hi matthew,

I was thinking about your deletions, and then I read this on your page: "Improving sourcing and academic accuracy of Indian articles on castes and social groups; the subject is woefully prone to puffery and pseudo-history"

My God, is this the reason why you just deleted a major chunk out of the page Khattak?? Well, I'll start by saying, I completely understand your line there. I have spent more than half of my time here sifting out useless and irrelevant pseudo history and claims. I actually give you credit for having the patience to do this, since I have tasted its bitterness myself.

However, coming from someone like myself, I assure you I dont accept things just as they are. I got research papers and articles from various professors I know on the subject, some forwarded it themself, I studied it and only accepted the references and material that I could myself verify in libraries or online. Do you know how seriously I take this, I took time out of my hospital duties and when I was free and spent months, (almost 6-7 months !!!) verifying it.

To further my point, just use one of the references and you'll know it checks out.

Dude, you just dont delete stuff, I literally cried when you just deleted hours upon hours of research. Research that has and is coming out in various academic journals and research papers.

Whereas, wiki is a free encyclopedia that everyone can edit, many put utter garbage, some pseudo material but there are genuine people who want wiki to be a genuine research oriented archive of human knowledge. That is why I contribute my time and energy to wiki. Please dont make me regret my choice.

Thank you, and no hard feelings. Wassalam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Table

Hi Matthew, I have a suggestion, I have re arranged and shortened the said page (Khattak) without affecting the related content. There is one last thinf that needs to be settled. The table. Once made, it will further reduce the contents table by shortening the Super Tribe sub tribe and so on headings. I have tried but I cant make one. You are the senior editor here, and I trust in your ability, please make a table from the following figure accommodating all its data with one more additional detail. The figure is: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khattak_family_Tree.jpg ] and the additional detail are the areas given in the super tribe sub tribe section for each of these names from the figure. For example, Super tribe > Khattak, Division > Bolak, Clan > Yusufzai-Khattak, Area > Lund Khwar, Tabar > Awwal Khel (this much is from the figure) and now the detail about their areas --> Areas: Mardan, Sawabi, Malakand, Charsadda. City Centers: Lund Khwar, Jamal Garhi, Sher Garh, Katlang, Hatia'n (alternatively Hatiaan), Sakha Kot.

Thus, using both the figure and the area info from the main article, a table will be created which will then replace all the headings and sub headings that lengthens the contents box.!!

I hope you get it. If there is anything you would like to ask, please contact. Thanx. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous cats

Hey Matthew!!

I read your reply, I completely agree with you. Those cats are erroneous. I will leave you to decide and put whichever ones you deem right. In that instance you are clearly the senior and more experienced wiki. No hard feelings man!!

I am glad that deletion of material was just a mistake and not an intended one. You dont have to apologize or feel bad for anything. Now that I know more, it was a simple mis understanding. I am glad you cleared it out. Thank you.

Finally, I would like to "recruit" ;) your help on that table making (wiki tables are a chaos too!! hahaha, I just cant get one to work!!) and that contents box on the page Khattak is also awkward looking with no text on its right side. (Its right side is more like an empty lunar crater!!). Cant we do something about it?

Would love to hear back from you. Wassalam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The whackos have woken up over there, I think

Geez, it's like pissing to put out a forest fire. And now it is running on two articles. I am not looking forward to Saturday, when our friends come off their blocks. Can you lend me a short rope and a high beam before then? ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On the bright side, they're not tampering with the article itself. And for our current friends, I think I'm fixing to post a "I will no longer respond to you until you follow any of the points of advice given by two experienced editors and an admin: either provide proposed changes with proper sourcing, or file a POV concern at the Noticeboard.". MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User Talk:Vikraantkaka

I've blocked Vikraantkaka for 48 hours for repeated removal of cited material without discussion. Whenever you revert things from these people, could you please issue some higher level warnings on their Talk pages if they've done it repeatedly - that way a subsequent block looks better supported should it need to be reviewed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ezhava and Keralone

Just to let you know that I have issued a 3RR warning to Keralone for repeated changes at Ezhava. I opened a discussion on the talk page last night but cannot change anything on the article as I'll be over 3RR. Keralone is actually way over, but until a minute ago I thought that I would give them another chance. - Sitush (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ukulele Talk

You wrote on my page a few years ago asking me what brought me to the Ukulele talk page that was 3 years old. I'm not sure if you're saying that there should be a time frame that one should reply or not, but unfortunately I'm not one who obsessively uses Wiki as a means to exercise or assert some type of empowerment and for that I wasn't aware that you even left a message for me, so I apologize for that. I actually teaching English to Brazilians and as part of the history the topic of the ukulele came up and one of my students used this page as a source and that's how I stumbled across the discussion page. Sorry if i'm not adding these topics correctly either. I have a friend who is a moderator and hopefully he'll give me tips and to the dos & don'ts or wikis protocols. Mamoahina (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

SPI for Chekon

Could you please let me know your thoughts regarding this? You can reply on my TP if you want (I suspect that the IP is Shannon1488 and he will be watching my page). - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Weird edits

Hi Matthew, As always, you are absolutely right in all instances. I will use the words you advised, and yes my tone indeed was excessive. It is just that, after trying so hard to maintain these pages from wanton vandalism and sometimes rightful but clumsy editors, it is difficult to remain calm. For instance, I have now spent more than a decade studying this particular subject i.e. Khattak and I know for a fact what the contributor added was not only incorrect, he used poor English, erroneous grammar, no references and worst of all, put it in Origins!! a description of battles that never happened in Origins!! whoah!! Sweet Jesus!!

Well, I will be careful and will definitely use your advice. Please, do provide me with your much wanted critical observations and advice in the future. Thank You Mathhew. :) Wassalam. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

forgot

Hey, I just forgot to mention that the said IP is banned in four different locations on the net (blacklisted). Take care :) Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reddy Imbroglio

Thanks for your information. As stated by me in Talk pages related to Telugu speaking social groups, Kammas belonged to Shudra caste but Kshatriya element got infused because of historical reasons. Of course, that does not make them Kshatriyas. The most illustrious Kamma of 14th century Musunuri Nayaks proudly and honestly claimed in their inscriptions that they belong to fourth caste. All social groups including Kamma, Velama, Telaga, Balija, Munnuru Kapu, Ontari belong the Kapu group whose basic profession was farming. The illustrious Prolaya Vema Reddy in his inscriptions claimed that he belonged to fourth caste and Panta vamsa (clan) a branch of Panta Kapus. Villge chiefs were given titles ssuch as Peda Kapu, Reddy, Choudary, Naidu etc., These titles are now confused and consolidated as "castes". Till fifty years back there was no separate social group like Reddy. Because of social and political reasons, Kapu gentry bearing the title "Reddy" started distinguishing themselves as a separate social group and Telugu society came to accept it. Too much should not be read into that.I can provide several references to cite that present day "Reddy" was kapu and that they are Shudras. However, I would not like to do that because I have other things to do. I leave it to Users like Foodie to improve his approach to Wiki and contribute more meaningfully.Kumarrao (talk) 16:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Editing Conflicts

Hi Matthew,

please help put in regard to the editing frenzy of this user AlimNaz, please look up the last deletions he has done and the comments he put as explanation. One go deletions without discussion or reasons cited, putting in his own views and beliefs contrary to all the references provided for the different articles and so on. His edits in question being on Pashtun people and Afghana articles. I am not going to engage him in vain conflict until your advice. Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's concerned with the use of sources. A western historian mentioning Afghani traditions is not saying they are fact. I'm concerned about the Afghana article and have made some revisions. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm explaining to this guy over and over that this section "Afghan and Afghana" doesn't belong in the Pashtun people article but he is ignoring this and trying to divert the discussion else where. He says that he's done years of special researches but I don't believe that, I believe he is the retired User:Afghan Historian who typed the word "Afghana" at google book search and copied all the book references he found there into Wikipedia articles. Anyway, he may go ahead improve and expand the Afghana article but him putting the "Afghan and Afghana" section in Pashtun article creates a big problem because the "History and origins" section concludes that "According to most historians and experts, the true origin of the Pashtuns is unknown... the origin of the Afghans is so obscure, that no one, even among the oldest and most clever of the tribe, can give satisfactory information on this point."--AlimNaz (talk) 21:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

NAIR

I have not removed any sources just readded images which were removed and deleted one for which there is no consensus (see with Sitush).Rajkris (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

If I have removed a cited source, i'm sorry for this. It was not my intention.Rajkris (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Not a problem, it's a common enough mistake to select more text than mentioned; I accidentally wiped a whole chunk of a Pashtun article last week by editing an earlier version, so been there. We do still disagree on the photo issue though, but we're hashing it out in talk, and though you and I disagree on some things I do greatly appreciate your professionalism on these issues, as far too many other editors have been uncooperative. Will read through the photo discussion and comment later. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Reddy . While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fuse lit, flameproof suit on

Oh, bother! If I go offline some time soon it may well be a direct result of this. It really isn't the sort of territory that is likely to make me friends. I just hope that there are some sensible people among the readers of that article, who take my point at face value rather than think it is some sort of equivalent to "call my caste the son of a dog, you asshole?" - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Were it me, I'd avoid the whole Jesus/Mohammed issue (which honestly isn't even that key to your post) and just focus on the fact that we can't accept everyone's personal histories at face value. Personally, I would change that if I were you to avoid any direct debate on actuality/fictionality of key religious figures, and instead focus on the general fact that people's claims about themselves, lacking outside critique, can't be accepted at face value. I don't see this as censoring WP, just finding the most productive angles of debate, given that there's no need to drag a largely unrelated secondary debate into a pretty minor issue of popular vice academic history. YMMV. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
You may be right but it will be a bit difficult to backtrack now. I think that a couple of admins have seen it, so cross everything. My point was to make it even-handed, so that people didn't think that it was some sort of attack on Muslim beliefs. You may be right but I am pretty sure that if I said that we cannot rely on what the Maqbara website says then, in no time at all, we'll be at a "you are smearing our religion" situation. Kicking off again at Nair now as well. Looks like it is going to be another of those weekends, although I notice that activity here generally seems to fall away on Sat/Suns. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AiH

I HAVE respond you on ahir discussion page and waiting for your response.you have time for deleting article but not for healthy discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.47.37 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to read up on WP:block evasion. - Sitush (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yadavs

Sir,i have given source of kashatriya status of yadavs in Rajasthan,Gujrat Northwestern india and south india.but you are ignoring my contribution and deleting it from article.this is not fare.you must respect others work also.i had edit the page with full refrence.i hope you will recognise it soon.115.240.62.56 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Greetings, since you're using an IP, and are not specifying which edits you're referring to, I honestly can't tell exactly which contributions you're referring to. We've had a variety of suggested statements on the Talk:Yadav page, but I don't recall any particularly viable ones that we're not caught up on. More a lot of non-includable claims from Vedas, etc. which do not meet WP standards. Can you please be a bit more specific as to what you feel we're "ignoring" or deleting? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

An Invite to join the WikiProject Education in India

- - - - - - - - - - - - WikiProject Education in India - - - - - - - - - - - -
Hi, MatthewVanitas, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Indian Education ! The WikiProject Indian Education is an evolving and expanding WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories and Wikiprojects, to do with anything related to Indian Education System(Schools,Colleges and Universities).

As you have shown an interest in article related to Education in India we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.Thank you for your contributions.

We look forward to welcoming you to the project!

naveenpf (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For cleaning up the caste-related articles with great patience and diligence utcursch | talk 16:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sitush for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. The Tiger's Tail Caught By The Dog (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Khudabdi Script

Dear Mr. MatthewVanitas, greetings, I refer to your enquiry dated 28/05/2009 and inform you that I have printed form of Consonants of Khudabadi Script in alphabetical order. I can scan and send by e-mail to you so that you can edit the same in this article. Please give me your e-mail address Gespee (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi/Kunbi merger

Hello,Thanks for the link, I've checked it. I'm a Kurmi, I think it will be good for both Kurmis and Kunbis to come on same stage.Merger will bring both group on common stage and it will clear many confusions, it will improve the article. I can say it's both academic and political advantage.--Ajneesh Katiyar (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Topple the Tyrants for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Topple the Tyrants is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topple the Tyrants (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Note that I did not create this AfD and only became involved in this to fix a broken nomination. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Any idea what purpose?

Any idea what purpose List of topics on the land and the people of “Jammu and Kashmir” achieves? I am not good with categories but this seems effectively to be a substitute for cats, and it includes a template that also seems to be a substitute. I am tempted to AfD the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I also am not terribly fond of that format, as I think its redundant to the category trees. That said, there does appear to be a precedent for such things existing: Category:Indexes of articles. I would suggest a less-clunky title like List of Jammu and Kashmir topics, at the least. I'm just not sure an AfD would kill it, since there are (in a very inconsistent way) articles for similar topic lists. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
WP:OSE may apply in any AfD discussion. Someone said "well there are other articles about shopping malls in other Indian cities" recently when one such was sent to AfD. The argument backfired: they were all deleted, and without even being proposed by name! - Sitush (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


As my yeahbutal, the "topics of" is more like an established format, so rather than pick and choose, you'd probably have to call into question the entire utility of "indexes of articles", which spills over a wide swath of WP. I don't know how many people out there are big fans of them (similarly, I'm mad for cats, but I've seen other experienced editors support eliminating categories entirely), but they'd probably come out of the woodwork at that point to argue that Indices aren't redundant. Overall, I'd say pick our fights and just rename it and move on. I'm far more concerned about the huge batches of POV caste articles than I am about organisational minutiae like Indices that almost nobody uses that don't take up much space (and will at least look clean in title with a rename). MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

James Tod

I am doing a little tidying up at James Tod and have also added a "Reputation" section. That section, which is incomplete, already makes interesting reading. Basically, it is likely to substantiate what I have suspected for a long time: we cannot rely on Tod here as a source for outright factual statements. When he is used as a source then we need a more recent supporting source (which kinda makes using him pointless in the first place), or we need to note in the text that it was Tod who said it and he is not exactly the most reliable of people. - Sitush (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Mentioned in Despatches

Buddy, lend me a dime?
Is your payment being drip-fed? Sitush (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Interest in the Nair caste blogpost

Dear sir,

I was perusing the ANI board and noticed your comment with regard to a rather angry fellow writing a blogpost on the topic of Nair caste members. As I am always on the lookout for (but have no interest in causing) humerous drama, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to link me to this blogpost where the rather angry gentleman accuses you and several other editors of having taken bribes for the purpose of slandering a caste in India. It would be appreciated, and depending on the inanity and paranoia exhibited in the post itself, might possibly make my day.

Your servant,
Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 19:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC) (Note, I don't normally write like this, but it's fun in this case. :p)

You can find it in the ANI history, or on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ThisThat2011

I am going to be ignoring ThisThat2011 for the foreseeable. Conversation is achieving nothing of value and is becoming tendentious. I have better things to do with my time here than to be "instructed" on what I need to do with it. - Sitush (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Shia Islam article

Dear Matthew, I made some cleaning on Shia Islam, and will continue it in the incoming days. The article contains lots of redundant sourced materials, and I am afraid of being accused in the next days. So please have a look now and then, and if you see any of my edit inappropriate, just revert it or rewrite as you prefer. Regards. --Aliwiki (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You might be interested in what's being unearthed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shannon1488 -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Kurmi kshtriya

Thoughts welcome at User talk:Sitush#Kurmi kshtriya -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious seats section of Yadava article

After reading the subject section which you added, I found that it is most appropriate to include this section in Konar (caste) article. Please consider about moving the section, even though the article needs serious improvement. Joy1963Talk 15:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That section was actually written by someone else, but moved by me during a merge, I believe. It's rather confusingly written, so I wasn't sure what to do with it. By all means, modify it or move it as you like, just leave us a clear edit summary (we've had a lot of vandalism and are touchy, so a clear ES would let us know you're a proper editor). Thanks for touching base on it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Please dont take ownership of articles

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors on Kurmi. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Sitush and MatthewVanitas have assumed the ownership of the article as per the evidence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush#What.27s_the_deal_with_Humour.3F.

Yes, but probably best to wait until Humour has run out of steam because those threads near the top may yet be useful in plain view rather than in an archive. Now, how long will it take him to run out of steam?, you may ask. No idea, but I have just warned him for disruptive editing. - your post

That said, do you think that once things calm down at Talk:Kurmi we can archive just about everything on the dang page? - post by MatthewVanitas

Let's keep wiki an open community. Please be respectful towards other users.

80.84.55.196 (talk) 06:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI: The version of this discussion that above user had on User Talk:Sitush has been copied to WP:NPOVN, in order to criticize the behavior of Boing! said Zebedee, SpacemanSpiff and myself (as "admins", even though I'm not one), as well as Sitush and yourself. It's at WP:NPOVN#One sided opinion of Admin and user Sitush and Matthews on the page Kurmi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurmi if you feel like commenting. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Geez, I have just seen this (the original IP post here). Not only is it an unattributed copy/paste but it takes the conversation between myself and MV out of context in a big way. I despair.
I do not deny getting frustrated with TT2011. A lot of other people have been, across many articles, but what the IP should have done here is link to the conversation of my talk page, which is in full view for everyone to see. It should also be noted that when I did something wrong recently regarding a TT contribution, I apologised both in the edit summary and on his talk page. We are all human and mistakes happen.
I have an idea who the IP is but, well, until SPI are able to link usernames to IPs there is little point in pursuing it. Matthew, keep doing what you do. We sometimes disagree about sources etc but at least we work our way through those (rare) situations in an appropriate manner. You work in these really rather drama-laden articles is very much appeciated by me and, I suspect, many others. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning on term Shudra & repeated insistance on keeping it on prominant places in articles on Hindu communities

Hi,

A general warning is given here about terming Hindu communities as Shudra.

More legal info here details on discontinued use of the word Shudra and relevant punishments if 'insult or injury deliberately'.

This is regards to inclusion of word Shudra as also insistence on keeping it so, on pages such as Kurmi (edit examples 1, 2, 3 -- there are tens of edits on the page as can be clearly seen here), Yadav (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, there are tens of edits as can be seen in the history here).

Please desist from such a behavior. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is not a 'threat' of any kind, just a warning. The website pointed out is for understanding legal standing in India. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently Indian laws don't carry a lot of weight on Wikipedia, so calling Indian Jatis as Shudra by standards of Wikipedia is not too offensive on Wikipedia. In any case, It is just a warning. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

!?!? You're not even reading you're own sources correctly. That site (a blog post, as far as I can tell), does not say that using the word "Shudra" is potentially illegal. It says that "There are many other offences causing insult or injury deliberately and details of punishment for such offences, and enhanced punishment for subsequent conviction." Note that that occurs in the paragraph about "causing injury or even insult to any SC or ST by forcibly removing his clothes or to parade him naked" (emphasis added). In other words, that law is talking about far more extreme things than using a particular word. Note, also, that the original claim that "they have not been called officially and academically Shudras or Dalits" is wrong. A search of gov.in sites shows over 200 mentions of "Shudra", with another 119 on nic.in sites. A search of Shudra on Google Scholar returns over 400 results--and that's searching for just articles published in the last 3 years (many/most of which are clearly published in India). I think, in fact, that this is the same problem that MV and Sitush have mentioned on both NPOVN and the article's talk page: you aren't reading critically. You see a term or phrase that has a sentence or two that matches up with your perception, but you fail to consider either the quality of the source or the actual entirety (the context) of the specific information you're quoting. Reading sources with a careful eye is absolutely critical when evaluating sources for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's fine if that's not your particular skill (we're all good at different things), but please don't keep rejecting the points made by those who are extremely good at analyzing sources.
Finally, please don't mention this issue of possible illegality any more. While I understand that you claim it's just information, not a threat, your purpose is still to "chill" discussion--that is, to influence us to not use the word out of fear of prosecution. That's the reason why we don't allow legal threats, and so, even if that's not your intention, why you need to stop. If you really think there is a legal risk to Wikipedia, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation directly. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually Quyrxian, it is about seemingly serious stuff like parading naked, and also about other seeming trivial things like insults. The text of the act is there at the bottom of the article Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Insult is about perception it is very subjective. My point is ...just as you missed the insult part, so did Thisthat something else, please AGF.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Can of worms

(1)I am giving one example of what even well sourced edits produce, a brown, tawny-coloured people, of average height, well-proportioned, rather lightly framed, and with a fair amount of good looks. They show well-shaped heads and high features, less refined than Brahmans, less martial than Rajputs, of humbler mien even than the Goalas; but, except when they have obviously intermixed with aborigines, they are unquestionably Aryan in looks. Grey eyes and brownish hair are sometimes met with amongst them. The women have usually small and well-formed hands and feet, this is of-course on the Kurmi page. You are quoting Dalton's ethnology of Bengal, which is perhaps considered a first class source. Would you quote from a Nazi Physiognomy manual? What value does such statements have? What do you mean by well-shaped heads or being less refined than Brahmans? Is it all not perverted? The point is you have opened a can of worms, I have looked at your talk page, and on Kurmi page, there are many registered and anon editors who have voiced their protest. Would you use Nazi sources to deal with Jew issues? Similarly British/Imperialist sources for Indians should be used with caution. (2)Your remark above in the edit ...ourcasteisawesome.com etc. is very interesting, I have read that some castes even arranged for Puranas to be written, and castes went up or down. So why use a dynamic lable when it is so pejorative and offensive?(3)One and two are suggestions take them or leave them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That quote has been there for years. It jars with me and I would be happy to see it go. However, when I looked into it the thing appeared to have been added by someone from India and so I thought that it might be one of those matters of pride. Regardless, this is a discussion for the article talk page, not here. - Sitush (talk) 11:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, it was in a version of the WP article from 2006 that was erroneously used as a source yesterday (at bookrags). - Sitush (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Please explain the previous edit Sitush, if it was for me.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Sitush how do you know where a person is from? I thought you were Indian as your username looks like Satish, your userpage says you are in Japan but edit in English, doesn't tell me a lot about you, same with anyone else.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Geolocate IP address and hope that it is not a proxy; and note that umpteen other people subsequently, who have professed to be of the Kurmi class and have edited in what might be called a "pro Kurmi" manner have left it alone. Regardless, my point is that MV did not insert this information. It existed before he edited anywhere here & I would guess that since it has been unchallenged for so long he made the same assumption as me: it is sourced and so, even if it grates with me, leave it alone. The edit introducing the mirror is here and the quote existed way back (I am not going through it all again to find the exact date of introduction). You have me confused with someone else, by the way. - Sitush (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I never claimed that Matthew inserted that text, I just used it as an example of the pitfalls of the system of wp:RS etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Have I (my confusion)? I'm sorry.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You said in your original message "you are quoting ..." There is no pitfall in the WP:RS system here: as I have explained, it has been left precisely because of RS. The fact that I am personally uncomfortable with it is not a reason for me to remove it.
I have used the name Sitush on what is now the web since before the web and PCs etc existed, back in the days of FIDO bulletin boards etc. According to a recent blog, I am in Liverpool although, if you look around you would see that I am in Manchester. I even said so in a message somewhere yesterday. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)Oh I should have used the more formal Dalton is quoted. There is a term that comes to my mind, wp:RS is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


As noted, I was not the originator of that text to the best of my recollection. I've certainly run across plenty of articles where antiquated-anthropological texts were quoted, and as Sitush notes generally it's been used as "look, even the British said Foo was beautiful and Aryan." Anachronistic? Highly. Useless? Not necessarily, it gives interesting insight as to the relationship between the British and the Foo caste. Not that the British are qualified to define a caste, but just that they were one of the greatest outside influences on India in the 1800-1947 period. I would be equally thrilled if we had access to Moghul descriptions, for example, so this isn't a "white people are right" issue so much as a reflection of our better access to British descriptions.

I wouldn't go out of my way to add it were it not there, but I don't see any major reason to remove it, provided it is clearly qualified as historical perspective vice historical fact. I also don't see it as a "pitfall of the RS system". Even if Dalton is agreed by consensus to be accurate on some issues, that does not make him RS for everything. A 19th century Norwegian may be RS for listing out the major shipping companies operating in Oslo in 1848 (since he can be presumed to be familiar with the topic and to have motive to coney the information accurately), but he is not an authority on oceanography worth of contradicting modern researches who have far better accesss and technology. Do you track my metaphor? MatthewVanitas (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is why I have quoted Pagdi on the Kurmi talk page, please bother to read if possible. I have had enough with the Kurmi talk page, for some time at least. No offence meant.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
And I see no reason to disagree with anything you have written last.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive_11&oldid=1144763205"