Talk:Aparna Rao

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Hi there! I left a tag for "weasel words" on this page. I want you to know that I think this is a great article you created, you just need to remove some vague words such as in the lead ("Renowned"). For instance in the lead this could be changed to "known" and it would read in a much more neutral tone..

Sam-2727 (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This may be helpful to future reviewers: User talk:Мастер Шторм#I have sent you a note about a page you started. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly reviews

Hello, Мастер Шторм. There are plenty of scholarly reviews of Aparna Rao's work (at JSTOR) which you can use to expand this article. You will have to just make an account at JSTOR (free of cost) to read them. I have found some reviews of her work. But only 10 of them are in English. Anyway, I am listing them under the relevant titles of her books:

• The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross-Cultural Perspective

Reviews: [1], [2]

• Autonomy: Life Cycle, Gender and Status among Himalayan Pastoralists

Reviews: [3], [4]

• Culture, Creation, and Procreation: Concepts of Kinship in South Asian Practice

Reviews: [5], [6], [7]

• Les Ġorbat d'Afghanistan: Aspects économiques d'un groupe itinérant "ǰat"

Reviews: [8], [9], [10]

• The Practice of War: Production, Reproduction, and Communication of Armed Violence

Review: [11]

• Mobility and Territoriality: Social and Spatial Boundaries among Foragers, Fishers, Pastoralists and Peripatetics

Review: [12]

• Krieg und Kampf: Die Gewalt in unseren Köpfen

Review: [13]

• Customary Strangers: New Perspectives on Peripatetic Peoples in the Middle East, Africa and Asia

Review: [14]

• Nomadism in South Asia

Reviews: [15], [16]

PS: You are obviously not bound to expand the article. But if you do expand it then please remember to write in your own words. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, NitinMlk. Thank you for sharing the above scholarly reviews. They would be helpful in developing this article to WP:GA. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Citizenship

I have removed the mention of Aparna Rao's citizenship as "Indian", that was added by 2601:40C:8380:1720:54BC:1F48:5C3A:C0F4, as there is reason to not conclude anything about her citizenship without a reliable reference. We have cited a reliable source in the article which says that she was born in India. However, it should be noted that her husband, Michael Casimir, was born in Berlin, and she was living in Europe for a long time. So, it might be better to not conclude anything about her citizenship without a reliable source. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Rao was a citizen of Germany. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Comments

• In the lead "studies on numerous social groups." Delete the word "numerous" as this is opinionated
• In the section "Early life and family" where are the quotes like "political struggles of India" coming from? Since they are so short and not really that significant, I would just recommend paraphrasing here, but if you think the quotes are necessary make sure it's obvious where they are from.
• Recommend renaming section "Research interests" to "Research." Also in this section, again there are unidentified quotes which I recommend paraphrasing. Also change "has published a number of books" to "has published books." The sentence that contains the quote "lives and environment" is grammatically incorrect, so I would again recommend paraphrasing here.
• Change the sentence "Though, while assessing her contributions to The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross–Cultural Perspective, Gropper suggested that there was incoherence in her work" to "Gropper suggested that there was incoherence in her work while assessing her contributions to The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross–Cultural Perspective." "that was co–authored by Rao in 2000" to "a book that was co–authored by Rao in 2000" (if it is indeed a book)
• Recommend deleting the quote. It's more or less summarized in the preceding sentence and might impart undue weight in the article
• For the source https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-234936270/obituary-for-aparna-rao-1950-2005, I recommend citing the jstor instead (https://www.jstor.org/stable/i40121757) as this is the original source.

Well written overall! I see you've alluded to in past comments that you're trying to turn this into a good article. Is this correct? If so, I can do a sort of "mock" review against the good article criteria. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, thank you for the above suggestions. I have tried to implement them. Though, I would still like to ask if the recent rephrasing done in the section "Early life and family" is ok? Let's make it even better, if that could be done! Also, all the titles listed under "Books" are books, though three of them are both printed books and eBooks (which can be confirmed from their catalogue at WorldCat — links provided). I have removed the mention of "eBook" from those three, to avoid ambiguity.

(Clarification: Sam-2727, all suggested changes were implemented. I wrote "tried to" as I'm not sure if I've got rephrasing right enough in "Early life and family" section. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I want to keep going till this article reaches GA status. I invite and welcome you to do a "mock" review. That would be so good )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 11:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, sorry for the late reply. I was busy. ok here's the criteria: Well written: I've covered this in previous comments, one of my main suggestions is change " among the few" to "one of the few." Also I'm still wondering about the quotes, such as "densely packed examination." Are these from sources? Verifiable with no original research: only possible concern here is that the article relies a lot on obituaries, which aren't exactly the most reliable sources. Most of the information coming from the obituaries is non-controversial, so is probably ok. Broad in its coverage: I'm reading [17], which says that before her death she would've been appointed "Directeur de Recherche at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes." Is this worth including in the article? Neutral: Neutrality concerns have been addressed in the past, so no present concerns here. Stable: Yes. Illustrated: Unfortunately I can't find any pictures that are freely licensed, but if you know of any, you should add them to the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

In the "Works" section you have a subsection called "papers." Should it be clarified that these aren't all of her papers, as I'm sure she wrote more than the one paper listed? Or are you referring to something separate from journal articles here? Also I moved the "death" section up as I think that's the correct place for it to be. I'd highly recommend moving forward with the GA nomination once all of these concerns are addressed. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the going through the article once again, Sam-2727. Please don't apologize! It's OK )) I will try to address everything step by step:

1. I will change "among the few" to "one of the few".
2. Yes, every single quote including "densely packed examination" is from the sources.
3. Yes, it would be worth mentioning that before her death, she was scheduled to be appointment as "Directeur de Recherche at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes", but, in which section should I add this information? "Career" or "Death"?
4. I would like to ask you (since you have experience) that can we not add her picture from her profile at UoC while crediting the UoC as the source of the image?
5. No, I am not referring to something separate from journal articles here. It is only one of the many papers written by her, and the same is true for the books also. You are requested to suggest the text to be added at the beginning of the section "Works" (or, separately at the beginnings of the subsections "Books" and "Papers"?) to clarify that these are not all of her works. Also, I will soon add a few more of her research papers. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC) (minor edit: corrected a grammatical mistake) Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I have added "Before her death, she was scheduled to be the research director at the Ecole des Hautes Etudes in Paris from June 2006" in the "Research" section. Is it the most suitable section to mention this information? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I have add a three more of her research papers. Also, I have added a sentence "Some of the books and research papers by Rao are as follows:" for clarification. Kindly suggest improvements to my recent edits to the article (if required). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, Only thing I can see now is that perhaps papers should be changed to "select papers" or something like that? Because they aren't all of her papers. Please do nominate for GA now. I'm interested to see how it goes (although it will probably be a while until someone picks up the nomination). Sam-2727 (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, thank you again for your time. Following on your advice, I am changing "papers" to "select papers".

lease give me a little more time before we nominate this article for GA status. Actually, I would add a picture of hers soon, and try to go through her biography that's available in the German language. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 11:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, that makes sense. You probably already know this, but just in case you didn't, I can use the Special:EmailUser page to email you. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, kindly send me the article )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, kindly assess/rate as per this parameter as well. At present, this article is appearing under Category:Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles. Sorry that I noted this so late! Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727. When you have the time, kindly have another look at the article (recent edits) before we nominate it for GA status; and if required, kindly feel free to ask for clarifications regarding the recent edits. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, no one has answered Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Subtopic for anthropologist yet; hence, the delay in nomination. Kindly provide guidance! Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sam-2727: User:Kj cheetham has added the article to the WikiProject Women scientists, but with a Class C rating/status. However, this article appears to be satisfying WP:BCLASS. No one has edited this article since your last edit of 10 June 2020, and the content remains unchanged. So, can we discuss upgrading this article from Class C to B for that wikiproject as well? So far, I have only seen the same class/rating for all the Wikiprojects on the articles, and have only noticed difference in their importance status only. Anyways, for WikiProject Women scientists also, this articles appears to be satisfying WP:BCLASS. Kj cheetham, you are invited to discuss this, and reconsider the rating you wish to give this article after having a look at the article one more time. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I originally based it on an automated ORES scoring, which gave around a 47% probably of it being Class C, however looking at it again myself, I'm happy to class it as B. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, thank you for taking out the time )) Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, a person has added WikiProject Women's History to the banner shell. When you have the time, kindly assess the article under that Wikiproject as well. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Non-English biography (?)

I just located an in-depth source about the subject at JSTOR: [18]. But it is neither available for free nor in English. It is probably in German. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk, it does look useful. I can email you a copy if that helps. Мастер Шторм, would you like one as well? Google translate seems to work in at least understanding the basic content of the text. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk, thank you again for your time. And Sam-2727, thank you for your kindness. I would love to receive a copy of that article )) However, I have not yet registered an email with the Wikipedia account, which I will do tonight (after creating a new and dedicated email for Wikipedia account). I would leave a message on your talk page to request a copy of the article after that.

In the weekend, I will take the help of an online translator to summarize important content from the biography, and then request time from someone who speaks German for correction of errors (if any). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 12:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I am unfamiliar with the subject. Previously, I added a few links of reviews here, after making a quick search at JSTOR, as the user Мастер Шторм seemed interested in expanding this article. Similarly, yesterday, I made another quick search at JSTOR as my focus went to this article after reading their recent post on my talk page. In short, the article won't be of much use to me. On an entirely different note, do you have access to this review? If yes, can you email me its screenshot/copy? - NitinMlk (talk) 15:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

NitinMlk, I have emailed you a copy of the article. I have access to many publications, so if you need one in the future, feel free to ask me. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - NitinMlk (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ph.D.

• Bollig, Michael (2009). "Obituary for Aparna Rao (1950–2005)". Nomadic Peoples. 13 (1). White Horse Press: 1–4. JSTOR 43124142.

In 1974, she began studies for her Ph.D. at the Sorbonne in Paris, where she studied anthropology, geography, and Islamic studies. ....supervised by the renowned academic Xavier de Planhol, was defended in 1980 and published in 1982.

In the article by Dr. Michael Bollig, it's mentioned that Dr. Rao did PhD (no one specialty is provided). Furthermore, it says that she studied anthropology, geography, and Islamic studies during her doctorate studies.

• Rössler, Martin; Röttger-Rössler, Birgitt (2008). "Aparna Rao, 1950–2005". Zeitschrift für Ethnologie [Journal of Ethnology]. 133 (1). Dietrich Reimer Verlag GmbH: 3–5. JSTOR 25843125.

Nach dem Magisterabschluss wechselte sie zu einem Postgraduiertenstudium an die Pariser Sorbonne, wo sie von 1974 bis 1979 neben Ethnologie noch Humangeographie und Islamwissenschaft belegte. 1980 erwarb sie bei dem renommierten Gelehrten Xavier de Planhol ihren Doktorgrad in Ethnologie mit dem Schwerpunkt "Islamische Gesellschaften".

In the article by Dr. Martin Rössler and Dr. Birgitt Röttger-Rössler, it's mentioned that Dr. Rao did PhD in ethnology. Furthermore, it says that she studied human geography/anthropogeography, ethnology, and Islamic studies during her doctorate studies.

Also, the article by Dr. Rössler and Dr. Röttger-Rössler gives more details about Dr. Rao's research works, and also about her Ph.D. (specialty).

I am inclined to believe that there could possibly be some error (typo/printing) in Dr. Bollig's article, as it appeared strange for her to have studied anthropology + [normal] geography + Islamic studies during her doctorate studies (but, I had added exactly what the source says), and then there is another source saying that she studied human geography + ethnology + Islamic studies during her doctorate studies. The second statement makes more sense, specially when there is a term "anthropogeography" that is synonymous with "human geography".

So, I have replaced the citation/reference for her Ph.D. from Dr. Bollig's article to Dr. Rössler's and Dr. Röttger-Rössler's article.

At present, both the articles are used as references on several counts in the article, but to add content on her Ph.D., I have preferred the second one. Comments/suggestions from experienced editors, including NitinMlk and Sam-2727, are invited. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, I have made some minor edits. I think your edits/comments above justify the change. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, I don't see any discrepancy. One source mentions in passing that she studied geography, while the other one mentions the exact branch of geography, along with giving the relevant details. We should obviously use the in-depth source for the details in question. So you are right in using the Rössler's source. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, I concur here. Sam-2727 (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

To the GA reviewer

The article is split into sections not necessarily chronologically because there is little information about her out there to write a comprehensive article on, so it reads better, in my opinion, split up like this. Note that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Order_of_events states that In general, present a biography in chronological order, from birth to death, except where there is good reason to do otherwise. Within a single section, events should almost always be in chronological order, and I think we have good reason here. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aparna Rao/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Right cite (talk · contribs) 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll write up a review for this. Right cite (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of November 16, 2020, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: The writing quality is good, the article structure is good, and the overall presentation appears to be neutral.

2. Verifiable?: Everything is cited in the article to really good high quality sources.

3. Broad in coverage?: I read everything on the talk page. As well as section, To the GA reviewer. With regards to the available sourcing and research, it is a good presentation of the article subject.

4. Neutral point of view?: I like how even in the intro there is some positive and negative reception reflection on the article subject. This shows a good presentation of NPOV.

5. Stable? Good edit collaboration on the article and the article talk page.

6. Images?: The one image used has a very good fair use rationale on the image page.

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Right cite (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Best get a second reviewer here before this is overturned. Not the type of review that will stick with the community at large. User:Right cite have you done this before?--Moxy 🍁 01:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, this was already discussed at length. Right cite (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it was not discussed....just passed. Definitely not any sort of lengthy discussion.--Moxy 🍁 01:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have asked Aircorn to have another look. I have also done a lot of work on copyediting post good article review. Right cite (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

ok perfect Aircorn know what's best. Are you saying your a major contributor to the article and also passed it? Anyways Aircorn will have guidance for us all.--Moxy 🍁 01:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, no. I reviewed the article as a good article. Then, after the review, I did copyediting to improve the article further. Right cite (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh I got it....article is interesting and a GOOD read but seems lacking in content....feels like a stub still with just basic info. There was more information in the references than the article..... but none the less informative and educational.--Moxy 🍁 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, thanks for that. I think it satisfies the breadth for a good article. I did a lot of copyediting to improve the flow and diction and structure. I'm happy that Aircorn has offered to help me with good article reviewing. Right cite (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if this was a harsh introduction.... wife telling me I sound like a dick. Noting really wrong here.... some grammatical and sourcing placement errors and in my view content missing. Just normally reviews are much more extensive. We need more reviewer so I hope you stick around and do more.--Moxy 🍁 02:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Moxy, thank you, and thank you for commenting about your tone, I really appreciate that. I will work to get better at good article reviews over time. I have taken a lot of good feedback and some not so nice feedback. I am trying to take that feedback to heart. Right cite (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hi. I have read through the article and see it has changed significantly since it was passed. It has improved immensely in my opinion. I will make some minor copy edits (mainly links - I don't think we should link parts of titles). My main GA concern is the image. The non-free rational is very weak. I don't think us not being able to find an image is a strong enough excuse to have a non-free one. That could apply to every article without one. This is not my strength so happy for another editor to disagree. The research section doesn't flow greatly either. I would suggest splitting the last two paragraphs by theme (maybe information about her books in one and her research in the other). There are a lot of her published work used in the references, but this is pretty standard for academic articles. AIRcorn (talk) 17:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  Aircorn, thank you very much for your assessment. I agree that it has changed significantly since it was passed, and it has improved immensely since then. I did a lot of copyediting post good article review and so thank you very much for acknowledging those improvements! Right cite (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn I recall the image was discussed at the time of its placement and deemed to be acceptable. See User_talk:Diannaa/Archive_70#Query_regarding_upload_of_a_file for the discussion surrounding this. I believe it was determined, after a very very extensive search, that no free alternative could be found. This is an acceptable rationale for non-living people. Looking into your suggested split of the research section now. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have now split up the sections. Please take a look. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Diannaa knows more on this than me. I would usually like a better rational as to why we need it in the article, not just that we can't find a free one. The split reads better to me. AIRcorn (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-free images are considered okay for people who have been dead for a while. For recently deceased people, we are expected to try a lot harder to locate a freely-licensed image. This one is okay.— Diannaa (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

    Diannaa, I would agree with your assessment, thank you! Right cite (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Мастер Шторм, a lot of minor changes were made to the article. Could you read through it to ensure that all of the information present is still accurate? Sam-2727 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I will definitely do that today itself, in the evening. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I will say that the article has been edited very well, and at the moment I could not find any misinformation. So yes, the information present is accurate. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, thanks very much for your kind words, I put in a lot of effort in copyediting after the good article review. Right cite (talk) 18:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, thank you for your efforts. Although typically that is supposed to be done before the GA review is completed, you did spend a very long time looking at the article and I am thankful for that. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, thanks very much, I appreciate your kind words. Right cite (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that the reviewer is indef blocked. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Changes by reviewer: This was the content of article before first edit by reviewer [19]. These 3 (multiple edit) [20] [21] [22] and these 2 (single edit) links [23] [24] show every edit made by the reviewer. In total, one new citation was added by them [25] and, in the same edit, a new information was also added by them (the year of award). However, the edit summary provided was misleading. They did not mention that they have added a new source. As commented above, I had checked the information added from citation. It's correct. Besides this, it appears that they rearranged/copy edited the content that was already present in article with the exception of article's lead (where they made changes and expanded the lead). Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Aircorn, given that the review was by a now-blocked sock, and you have looked it over, can you please give an assessment as to whether it does fully meet the GA criteria? The DYK nomination was made on the strength of the original GA review, which has to be considered suspect, especially given the needed subsequent edits. It currently has a neutrality template, which if accurate would mean it fails one of the GA criteria. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• I looked at this as an experienced reviewer helping out a new reviewer. I was burnt on that, but that is not the nominators fault. At the time I felt the article met the criteria and the subsequent revelations don't change that. The template should not be there. It is more concerned with notability than neutrality. I feel a bit like this article is being punished for another editors misbehaviour. I will remove the template. AIRcorn (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick review

Her notability is obscured, the sources are poor, and most of the structure and presentation is more like an obituary or vitae (which is no surprise given the references). The content problems and how they came about all feel like paid editing. --Hipal (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal has been cyberstalking and harassing me and following me around to articles they have never appeared on before, seconds later. I'm sorry to others that have to deal with this. Right cite (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:FOC. --Hipal (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Right cite (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite. You are somewhat new around here so maybe you don't know... If you have an issue with another editor you need to go through the various conflict resolution steps found here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Claiming that someone is stalking you without any diffs isn't very helpful. For instance, have you opened up an actual discussion with the other editor? Have you filed a resolution request at WP:DRN or posted at any of the various Wikipedia venues? Have you filed a plea for help at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Stating in CAPITAL LETTERS in edit summaries about another editor's behavior and edit-warring over posts doesn't move the discussion forward. Around here we need to edit by consensus - I have no idea if either of you are engaged in egregious behavior and it is not up to me to judge. How about discussing what is going on, taking it to a noticeboard, and working things out. Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal Maybe you're right. If this other editor is a paid editor and has not disclosed that, then shouldn't you follow the procedure outlined at WP:PAID? Shearonink (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, I haven't had a chance to do that. I have indeed asked Hipal to stop following me. Multiple times. It is indeed WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I have the DIFFs. I hope it does not come to using the DIFFs. I have asked them to stop on their own. Right cite (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I've no evidence that anyone here is a paid editor, and attempted to reword my comment to make that more clear. The problems in the article and how the article came to be this way are typical of paid editing or something similar. My second comment here was a reminder that we all focus on content and policy. I hope we can do so. --Hipal (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I like the improvements (though descriptive edit summaries make collaboration much easier), and I've made a couple of changes.

It could take a lot of work, but it might be better structured without "Reception" section. Instead, noteworthy commentary should be added with the mention of the work in her chronology. --Hipal (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense to me as well. Shearonink (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The sources haven't been improved, the undue weight given them, the resultant bloated article... --Hipal (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Hipal I missed this (I have a lot of stuff on my watch list) until you placed the neutrality tag. I will review your comments in detail and post my thoughts in a few hours. Also pinging Мастер Шторм so they can have a look. At first glance, the removal of the "Reception" section seems like a good idea. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. While I've not looked at each ref in depth, it looks to me that we have some obituaries and a few commentaries on her work. Even the notability looks thin (but no, I am not questioning her notability). Is there anything with depth that isn't an obit? We don't have much to work from if we're writing an encyclopedia article. --Hipal (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, here are my extended comments. Aparna Rao, even though she was a prominent anthropologist, unfortunately doesn't have many independent sources discussing her work. What we can derive comes from her work comes from three separate types of reliable sources: obituaries (those published in scholarly publications indicating they are reliable), scholarly reviews (e.g. of the general field) that mention her, and specific reviews of her books. We can derive most of our knowledge about her early life and specific details of her career through obituaries. This is why the sections "Academic Career" and "Early Life and Education" might seem a bit one-sided. We simply don't have any other reliable sources besides the obituaries discussing this point in her life. If sources taken as a whole are a bit one sided, I don't know if there's much we can do to resolve that. After all, Wikipedia is really just supposed to summarize and appropriately balance reliable sources, nothing else. The "research" and "written works" section include the other types of sources, but these too are mostly positive (albeit to a lesser degree than the obituaries).

I know your complaint is primarily about the sources in the article, but here are some of my thoughts of the "Research" and "Written Works" section as I go through them:

• In the first section of "Research," I see how the sentence For a number of years, she executed ethnographic field research on a number of rural and semi-rural social groups in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and western India could be construed as overtly positive. Here, the problem is a lack of specific dates or numbers, forcing us to use vague terms (in this case, whoever wrote this used "a number of"). Note that the original source says The late Aparna Rao spent many years doing ethnographic fieldwork among numerous rural and semi-rural communities in Afghanistan, Kashmir and in western India, and published several books and papers based on her research, so we have at least fluffed down "many" to "a number of." To make this even more neutral, I have changed the sentence to For a number of years, she executed ethnographic field research on rural and semi-rural social groups in Afghanistan, Kashmir, and western India (removing the second "a number of" as it is more or less implied). The rest of the research section seems to be fairly neutral in tone. The sentence Rena C. Gropper of Hunter College noted that Rao was one of the few anthropologists who had carried out research studies in the midst of groups who draw their basic livelihood from other cultural groups might seem a bit out of place here, attempting to construe this paragraph more in a "positive tone," but really this is just a review of Rao's work that applies to the preceding sentence (and, like most reviews, happens to be positive).
• In the Written Works section, we (Мастер Шторм and I) have spent a long time attempting to summarize all reviews of her book. Such reviews will naturally be phrased in strong language, and since we are referring to the reviews, that language is reflected in the article. Note that here we have both sides of the equation: While we have the "praise" such as Olesen suggested that the research by Rao had filled "an almost complete gap, we also have the critism, such as in Gold pointed out that a large proportion of its content had been drawn from anthropological field studies concluded or initiated in the 1970s and early 1980s. I think we could expand on these criticisms more though, so I have done so by amending the first to Gropper suggested that her book The Other Nomads: Peripatetic Minorities in Cross–Cultural Perspective (1987), lacked structure and relevancy to future work and the latter to Gold pointed out that a large proportion of its content had been drawn from anthropological field studies concluded or initiated in the 1970s and early 1980s and that the book lacked "new ethnography". Gold also complained about a one-sided presentation of essentialization that didn't give much credence to a postcolonial interpretation. Note that this review by Gold seems to be the most critical review, yet still is largely positive, making the task of including criticism in the article even harder. If the reviews are largely positive and we want to accurately summarize the review (including noting that the authors of the reviews saw her work in a positive light), then there is not much we can do here besides include the criticism, as we have done.

• Your complaint is mainly about lack of sources, so let me address that. As notable figures become less "in the public eye," it is natural that larger and larger portions of the sources mentioning them will be positive. In Rao's case, a large portion of these are obituaries, while the sources with some negative connotations tend to be reviews of her written work. This is why the written work section includes some criticism as opposed to other sections. Few works directly criticize Rao's work, but when they do, we include that criticism. The article in its current state I believe reflects well the balance of information presented in reliable sources. I have found some specific instances of criticism that could be expanded from existing sources, but have found no additional sources besides those in the article to supplement critical aspects of her life. The challenge of this article has always been to moderate the very positive tone of the vast majority of sources. See for instance how the original article looked vs. now. Please let me know if this addresses your concerns or you would like me to do something different here. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• As an addendum -- and this should not be construed as a criticism of your comments as they were very helpful and forced me to read the article again thoroughly with an intent to balance points of view -- it's probably not the best thing to immediately declare paid editing is at hand. It raises tensions from level 1 to level 10 very fast. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Again, there's no evidence of paid editing, but we should be far more cautious with situations like this.

Thanks you for taking so much time with your detailed response.

My complaint is the reliance on poor sources, and the problems that result, especially giving them undue weight. This isn't about verification (or at least I'm assuming everything is properly verified).

So, we've nothing in depth about her but obituaries then? The reliability of such obituaries is not very good.

Which, if any, commentaries on her work (or any references at all) demonstrate lasting significance? --Hipal (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

To your point on reliance on poor sources, I don't know if there is much else we can do since they are our only source of information for a large part of her life, so we kind of have to give them weight. You are correct, the obituaries appear to be the only source of information about her life. We do have in-depth information about her work though through the reviews of her work. Perhaps you could clarify your latest question if I'm interpreting it incorrectly, but a lot of the reviews demonstrate lasting significance (to the point that it would be hard to list all the examples here). Here's an example: In [26], the reviewer writes: Since the late 1970s, Joseph Berland and Aparna Rao have been leaders in a scholarly effort to define a form of itinerant economic adaptation that is not pastoral nomadism, but, rather, involves providing non-food goods and services to settled populations in various regions of the world. This is perhaps the most explicit admission of "lasting significance" overall, but others discuss lasting significance in terms of specific works. For example, [27] says the work reviewed here are essential additions to the literature and warrant close attention by students of nomadic peoples irrespective of geographical focus. Now, these types of statements weren't included in the Wikipedia article because that wouldn't be very neutral, but they are there, regardless. Sam-2727 (talk)

Adding ping to Hipal because I messed up your username in the edit summary. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Both the refs you point out were written at the time of publication. As scholarly reviews, they identify significance at the time. The first appears to be from a rather narrowly focused publication, but the second appears to carry a great deal of weight being in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.

Given the references, I'd prefer we have a smaller article built around the JRAI ref.

I think it would be helpful to have subject-matter experts, maybe from WP:ANTHRO, to see if we're overdoing this article as much as I fear. --Hipal (talk) 00:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, Could you clarify what you mean by "overdoing" the article? I don't think we should exclude factual information from the article on the premise of balancing viewpoints, because then we would be excluding details of her life. I feel like that part of WP:NPOV would come into play if we were considering a larger topic and had to decide what information to include and what information to exclude. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "overdoing" though. Here, we summarize more or less every piece of information available (on the internet, at least). I have done as you request here, although the wikiproject doesn't seem to be very active. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I have also requested here. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Also, if we continue to disagree on this issue further, do you think it would be productive to resolve the dispute at WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Sam-2727 (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, thank you for pinging me. I have read all the comments, and I think that you have addressed the neutrality concerns fair and well. I think that I might not be able to add anything further. Also, from now on, I will be actively following up on the discussion in this section. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We most definitely need some outside help. NPOVN would be good in addition to finding some experts. I don't see any understanding of the problems of using poor sources, due weight, or the differences between encyclopedic and non-encyclopedic information. --Hipal (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I have asked at the noticeboard. I'm afraid we're simply at a stalemate at this point in our disagreement over the weight given to sources currently in the article. To summarize my point: I believe we're including all relevant encyclopedic information in reliable sources currently available. I'm willing to continue editing the article to your points if you can provide some specific points or examples in the article of change. Perhaps a third opinion will help me to understand though, if they agree with you. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

How is "encyclopedic information" determined from your perspective? --Hipal (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I would define it as simply "information included in an encyclopedia" and then I would define encyclopedia as (drawing from other definitions present online) "a compendium of factual information regarding the subject". Of course, this definition becomes more nuanced as one digs into "edge cases," but that is more or less the base definition. Would you define it differently? Sam-2727 (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I start with WP:NOT. --Hipal (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking about this a bit more, and I think I see what you're getting at with respect to the opinions of [28] (Royal Anthropological Institute) vs. [29] (a lesser known journal). The thing is, these reviews aren't directly incompatible with each other. Indeed, they maintain more or less the same tone as each other. So, elevating one wouldn't change the tone of the piece (that said, I'm going to expand the Royal Anthropological Institute article by mentioning its review of a book). I thought originally that you were concerned about no enough criticism being present in the article. But is this not what you are getting at? Sam-2727 (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Correct. That's not what I'm getting at.

It's easy to think "criticisms" and "positive vs negative" when it comes to POV (and NOT). It's really about what we mention in an article, to what depth, and with what context. --Hipal (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I was typing up a response to your NOT point, but it appears you responded before then. Anyways, here's what I was going to say:

As to your point on WP:NOT (which I missed somehow when making my earlier comment), I don't think it's very productive to start with a definition in the negative. It's best to start with the definition in the positive, then define a larger body of work and figure out which falls under the positive. Those that happen to not would be in the negative. But anyway, that's more of a semantical point. I think what you're getting at here is that you believe the current article for Aparna Rao falls under WP:NOT. If so, could you specify which point it falls under? I'm not really seeing it (as you are aware).

And here's my additional comments: What was perhaps confusing to me is your original comment which read more like an obituary or vitae (which is no surprise given the references). The content problems and how they came about all feel like paid editing. This made me believe that you were concerned with "fluff" or "positive" details as that is essentially what an obituary contains, or what paid editing strives to do. We can certainly expand on the Royal Anthropological Institute article, since that appears to be a more reliable source (indeed, I have asked Мастер Шторм to do that). That said, I don't believe Nomadic peoples (the journal that a lot of the other reviews are published in) is necessarily a poor journal, so these reviews should definitely still be included. Ultimately, this addition will probably add a sentence or two to the article, since the royal institute article is fairly short. I get the sense you are hinting at larger structural problems throughout the article. The thing is, excluding that royal institute article, all the other journal reviews are of more or less the same quality. And we still need the parts where the obituaries are used to illustrate critical factual details of her life (where did she go to college? What did she study in college? etc.) Sam-2727 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Please see the new "written works" section we have created here: User:Sam-2727/sandbox. I excluded the citations when copying/pasting, but we'll add them back in if added to the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's very productive... I always find it very concerning when policy is overlooked and appears to be dismissed. --Hipal (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, the productiveness I was referring to was over a semantical difference, not a practical difference. I put the text in small anyways, because the concern I believe you have with the article is NPOV, not WP:NOT. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you also review the new written works section, in my sandbox above? Sam-2727 (talk) 18:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NOT is enforced primarily through POV. --Hipal (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I disagree with you, but I fail to see the relevancy of which policy is a derivative of another policy. We both agree that they are important to follow, so could you either review the revised version of the written works section at User:Sam-2727/sandbox (again, excluding citations for now) or give some more specifics? Sam-2727 (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You disagree? What do you make of all those mentions in NOT of neutrality and independent sources? --Hipal (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I make of it that NOT is derived from neutrality (so POV being enforced through NOT, if you would like to put it that way). But again, I don't see how this point is relevant to the discussion at hand. Please, refer to the revised version of the written works section. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

There are no refs in it. It looks grossly undue though. --Hipal (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, yes, as I have said above, there are no references because of me copying/pasting the current version. Basically all that has been changed is the extra paragraph starting at Rao's coauthored book Customary Strangers: New Perspectives on Peripatetic Peoples in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, which is sourced to the royal institute article. A bit confused here: didn't you want us to expand on this reference (since it is of a higher standard than the rest)? Sam-2727 (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Just popped back into here as the reviewer has been blocked for socking (or being a sock). Anyway had a quick read through of this and have a few comments.
  • Notability is established through AFD. Unfortunately we have a low bar for academics (see WP:PROFF) and it leads to problems with finding secondary sources. If the sourcing is so poor then AFD is the way to go, not tagging it for neutrality
  • GAs don't need secondary sources. They are better with them obviously, but we have a lot of articles in WP:GA (look at the road ones for instance) that rely just on primary sources. There are secondary sources here anyway so that is not really an issue
  • I don't get the reference to WP:NOT. How does this violate that?
  • Undue weight is relative to the sources. If a good source is underused relative to poor sources then there may be a case, but if most of the sources are poor then we can only do the best we can.

• Overall I feel the criticisms here are too harsh. There is no obvious neutrality concerns that I can see. AIRcorn (talk) 08:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

GAs don't need secondary sources Woah. I can't believe anyone wrote that. Can you point out such articles or relevant discussions.

All of Right cite's edits need careful review and consideration for rollback. --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I don't agree with that point of Aircorn, but I agree with their other points. Their example is one of the many road GAs we have. Here's one: Ontario Highway 410. Now this includes quite a bit of secondary sources, but very few secondary sources that are independent of the subject (which is what I think Aircorn meant).

It appears to me that right cite mainly copy edited. The only non-copy edited part was an expansion of the lead, which I should have time to carefully review in the next couple of days. Sam-2727 (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Cirt wanted people to believe he was only doing copy editing, but it was a sham. Let's not fall for it.

The example is of a physical object and I see no discussion on the use of primary vs secondary sources nor independent vs non-independent sources. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with it either, but it is the case. See M-144 (1937–1939 Michigan highway) where every source is a map. Information for the article is found by comparing maps from different dates. There are a lot of other small roads that have this style (including FA ones). It is not really a GA issue, but more a notability one. For certain topics we allow articles to exist without secondary sources and this includes certain roads and academics. I don't agree with this either FWIW, but that is the current consensus. I guess my point is that the level of sourcing here giving whats available is alright. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a sample of 10 edits from right cite: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. They all appear to be true copy edits, which gives me confidence that he is really just copy editing here. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please let's stop wasting time arguing how problematic Cirt was. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I'm not arguing with you in general, I'm just saying that it appears, based on a spot check, that Cirt in this case really was just copy editing. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

See also Мастер Шторм's comment here. Sam-2727 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

My biggest problems with Cirt's edits were that he seemed to have no grasp of POV at best, and little understanding of the difference between encyclopedia articles vs any other type of publication. The behavioral problems alone would have got him blocked though. --Hipal (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I agree with that point. I'm just saying that in this specific article it appears that there was no substantive content editing done by right cite/cirt (based on an analysis by me and an analysis by Мастер Шторм) that would introduce POV editing. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Defining commentators in parentheses

Appears to be practice in this article of defining the commentators in parentheses, and then using a citation to back up that information.

The citation used itself often does not mention the subject of this article, itself.

Examples: [40] [41]

This would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. Right cite (talk) 16:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, doesn't WP:SYNTH apply to opinions? E.g. drawing opinions through combination of sources. All we are doing here is giving context: she was the director (as stated in the source), and it is useful to the reader to know that. Sam-2727 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, it's a repeated pattern of using cited sources that don't even mention in passing once the subject of this article itself. Right cite (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, WP:SYNTH isn't about whether the source pertains to the article subject or not, it's about combining sources to form opinions. Here, we are not forming opinions, but rather listing sources relevant to providing context. Sam-2727 (talk) 20:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, I hear you, but the end result is an article filled with sources not about the subject of the article, itself. We should avoid that as a pattern. Right cite (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, I understand your concern. I agree that we should avoid adding short intro for the most part of the article. I suggest that we mention short intro of only reviewers and only with their reviews. It will show how the reviewers are related to the subject, and would be an encyclopedic and informative addition. For example, the article says that Rao's Les Ġhorbat d'Afghanistan. Aspects Économiques d'un Groupe Itinérant 'Jat' (The Ghorbat of Afghanistan. Economic Aspects of an Itinerant Group 'Jat') was assessed by Asta Olesen. If we re-add that Olesen was a former ethnographer and employee of World Bank in Kabul, it would show that Olesen was related not only to the ethnography field but was also associated with an international financial institution, and hence related to the subject of the research work. Please share your thoughts about this suggestion? Pinging Sam-2727 also. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, no, those are then conclusions you are making on your own of why that is relevant, and pulling in sources that do not mention, "Aparna Rao", unless those sources also do mention, "Aparna Rao"? Right cite (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, thanks for answering. I am trying to get it through my head )) Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

If the subject of the article isn't mentioned, then we need to be sure it's relevant. We also need to be sure when adding such details they are contemporary, which can put us into SYN problems.

I fail to see how being an "employee of the World Bank" is relevant, and "former ethnographer" seems to detract and add bloat.

Similarly, "the director of..." seems to detract and bloat. --Hipal (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I think we can certainly exclude these statements to avoid bloat, but the issue her isn't WP:SYNTH, because that policy is discussing reaching inferences through combination of sources. We are not making any inferences or opinions through the addition of these sources. That being said, I tend to agree with you that leaving these statements out would benefit the article. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ok I missed what Мастер Шторм had said above. That does appear to be a SYNTH problem. So I'm in definite agreement that we should leave these out. Sam-2727 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing this point in detail, Hipal Right cite Sam-2727. I get it completely now. I too agree that we shall avoid adding the short description for reviewers. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposing template change

Presently, {{subscription required}} is placed with all JSTOR citations in article. However, only one JSTOR article requires subscription, and the rest are accessible after a free registration at JSTOR. I suggest that we replace the existing {{subscription required}} with {{registration required}} for all the sources but that one. Template:Subscription required says Use the {{subscription required}} template when: ... a reader must pay to subscribe to the website to gain access to the linked page. while Template:Registration required says Use {{registration required}} when you find an external link within a paragraph or a reference citation, where it is necessary to register with the website (but not pay anything) in order to view the page. If other editors agree, I would like to make this change to article. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, this looks like a good addition to me. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sam-2727, thank you for answering. Let's wait for some time and if no one objects then I will change the template. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Right cite for their opinion. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 07:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Мастер Шторм, sounds good. Right cite (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Revision/Version of article from which citation-numbers are listed below • Мастер Шторм (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, here are all of the sources presented, with analysis of reliability. I was going to make a table, but decided it was probably easier to format as a list. Most importantly, please read my summary at the end and let me know if you agree with my revised assesment.

1. [42] Obituary published in Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Authors: Martin Rössler and Birgitt Röttger-Rössler. Authors former colleagues of Rao at her university. Obituary published as part of normal journal issue.
2. [43]. Obituary. Author: Bollig, Michael. Former colleague of Rao's. Published as part of normal journal issue (technically a special issue on "Pastoralists under Pressure in Present-Day Sudan").
3. [44]. Anthropos journal. Mathias Guenther (professor at Wilfrid Laurier University).
4. Repetition of 1
5. Repetition of 1
6. [45] Bio in book she coatuhored. Facts used for: who her husband is, department chair (redundant source, could be removed with the fact still in place), she was co-chairperson of a certain journal, before death was scheduled to become research director of university.
7. [46] Website of her husband. Used to cite info on husband. Used in conjunction with other sources.
8. [47]. Bio in book she was coauthor of. Used to demonstrate that she was professor at university of cologne.
9. [48] registry of members of the Société Asiatique (cited as demonstrating that she was a member)
10. [49] International Committee on Urgent Anthropological and Ethnological Research, Vienna, Austria: Committee's Secretariat. A bit uncertain what this source is. Seems to be some sort of announcement?
11. [50] Bio in book she wrote. Used to cite that she was an assistant professor at a place and her interests.
12. [51] Used to cite what a certain journal is on. From journal's own website.
13. [52] Bio in book where one of the essays is written by her.
14. [53] Newsletter of International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences. I'm pretty certain it's listing her as part of the included directory of affiliates.
15. [54] book on languages in Afghanistan. Describes Rao's work.
16. [55] books on peripatetic peoples. Describes Rao's work
17. [56] obituary published in Himalaya journal. The author, John Schroder, describes himself as "a friend of Rao's."
18. [57] Review article by "Rena C. Gropper," professor at Hunter College, in American Anthropologist.
19. [58] Review by Robert M. Hayden, University of Pittsburgh, of Rao's work published in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
20. [59] Review by Asta Olesen, Nordic institute of Asian Studies, published in Anthropos.
21. [60] Review by Jon W. Anderson, professor at Catholic University, published in Middle East Studies Association Bulletin.
22. [61] Review by Ann Grodzins Gold. Published in Asian Journal of Social Science.
23. [62] Review by Vinay Kumar Srivastava. Published in Anthropos.
24. [63] Review by Bahram Tavakolian. Published in Nomadic Peoples. Note that this was published in a journal Rao was editor in chief of previously.
25. [64] Notice in journal that one of Rao's works was awarded the choice award.

We can divide the sources up into three more or less equivalent categories:

Obituaries. Upon further analysis, they all seem to be of the same quality. They are all written by former colleagues in obituary style writing, but they appear to be published in reputable anthropological journals, suggesting that the information is at least reviewed to some extent (presumably by the editorial board). This last point is speculation though. I'm unable to find any information on the publication process for obituaries in these journals. There are three of these sources. Most of the information in the article I believe currently sourced to these is appropriate. WP:WEIGHT states that Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Most of the facts cited to these sources are more or less extremely devoid of opinion and/or could probably not be influenced by the bias to exclude only positive information commonly seen in obituaries. For instance, what was her PhD on? Or where did she work? Some aspects, however, I believe could be excluded, depending on how much weight we decide to give these sources. For instance, She spoke multiple languages including Bengali, English, Farsi, French, German, Hindi, Romanes, and Urdu, and she did research on the ethnic, religious, and political conflicts in Jammu and Kashmir. I choose these two examples because they are examples of where the overall "supportive" tone of obituaries leaks into the facts that are excluded/included, and could possibly affect the phrasing of these sentences. I don't believe the obituaries are factually inaccurate, since they are published in reputable journals, but my proposal is that we use them for the most uncontroversial of facts anyways.

My proposal described above is somewhat derived from WP:SELFSOURCE. Although these are certainly not self-published sources, the treatment described by that section to use material thatis neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim seems reasonable here.

Information directly from Rao. This includes sources like 11 and 13, where the information is from bios of books she coauthored or contributed an essay to. Now, these are in published books, so I don't think the bios are factually inaccurate, but they are certainly fluffed-up since they are presumably written by Rao. These should probably just be treated like the obituaries. That means that, for example, the statement She researched the aspects of economy, ethnicity, gender relations, and social organization of the "mobile populations" of pastoralist and peripatetic peoples in Afghanistan, France, and Kashmir, should probably be removed, but more "cut and dry" information like She had been on the board of directors of the Association of Gypsy Lore Studies should be kept.

Fully independent sources The definitively reliable sources are generally book reviews and/or books that mention her research. So, this means we have a much more reliable picture of her work than her life. We have discussed proper weighting of book reviews before. We are weighting more reputable reviews with longer summaries of the review currently, so I think the weight in that section is appropriate.

Summary

I think we should only use facts from the obituaries and sources directly from Rao that are extremely devoid of possible opinion and/or bias (the examples I give are what her PhD was on and where she worked). The fully independent sources, used more of the time to cite details about her work, are probably ok to keep. I expect using only facts that are extremely devoid of possible opinion from the sources close to Rao will lead us to cutting approximately 4-5 sentences currently in the article. I am happy to complete this change, but wanted to hear others' thoughts first. That is, do you agree with my assessment? Sam-2727 (talk) 03:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hipal and Sam-2727, I want to add here that it is completely fine with me when you agree on what should be kept and removed from the article, and you make the changes. Thank you very much for discussing the matter in so much detail. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work, Sam-2727.

I still think the obituaries written should be treated as opinion pieces as far as content is concerned. I don't believe we have any reason to assume they have been reviewed for accuracy. When it comes to weight, I think it says a lot that such obituaries were published in these journals.

Let's see if we can get responses from experts that might know what to make of obituaries published in such journals (or anything else). Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia might be of help. --Hipal (talk) 23:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, I'll ask at the main wikiproject page just to get more eyes on the question. Sam-2727 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Decided to ask where you suggested in the end. See here. Sam-2727 (talk) 06:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Published obituaries in journals are a standard place to go to get a big picture look at an academic's overall work and an evaluation of which parts of it are important and why. They are typically written by experts close enough to that work to provide an expert evaluation and, I believe, are reliable for that (much more so than say a newspaper obituary might be, because the newspaper journalists are likely to get any such material secondhand from the same experts and mangle it in translation). Stripping them down to a bare recitation of facts would severely hinder our ability to write articles that say anything of interest about the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

David Eppstein, thanks for your comments. This seems reasonable, and I'm willing to go with this proposal (it would result in no changes to the article in its current state, I believe). Hipal, what are your thoughts on this? Sam-2727 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your work on this.

The lede seems a bit bloated (this is a general problem with articles Cirt had been editing) [65]

The intro to her early life and education has puffery typical of obituaries [66].

The Research and Written Work sections seem a bit repetitive and bloated.

I'd trim the Works section down to clearly noteworthy entries, focusing on the papers and especially the edited books.

Happy holidays. --Hipal (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hipal, Thanks for your help and suggestions. I will follow up on trimming the research and written works section over the next couple of days. Sam-2727 (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)