Talk:Dadheech Brahmin

Regarding labeling as dubious the source of statement about Dadhich/Dadheech brahmins claiming to be descendants of Rishi Dadhichi

For a start, can You please tell me which site are You referring to as holding rubbish data? If You are referring to Shodhganga then let me make You aware that it is an initiative by the Central Government of the Republic of India to convert all the existing hard copies of doctoral thesis done by successful P.H.D holders in Indian universities into a digital format and thus to make it accessible to all.

You can find reliable information on almost every topic which has been researched successfully in an Indian university. If You are not from India or if You are not aware about the research scenario in India(or in general) then kindly let me tell You that an average P.H.D candidate spends around 5 years or more to be finally able to submit his thesis successfully, in most cases on a direct or indirect government grant, though in modern times corporate sector is also funding many new thesis.

Now it may happen(mostly in science and technology) that some scholar successfully researched a subject in 1970's and reached to a conclusion which was relevant in his time and was awarded a P.H.D. But as some fields like science and technology are very dynamic the result obtained say in 1970's may seem outdated(or rubbish, in words of a lay man who desires to insult others) to someone in 21st century.

Since this Wikipedia page about Dadhich/Dadheech brahmins is not related to science or technology this information is still very much relevant(maybe more than previously).

If You are talking about some other site given in references of this page kindly let me know and I will try to furnish relevant information as best I can. Just don't delete data from this page prior to discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:1489:1F8B:B5B0:3254:E6DD:1EC5 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding incorrect labeling of a source as belonging to British Raj era

One of the source provided is not from the British Raj, I can understand as to why some sources from British Raj era are not considered factual since the British were outsiders ruling an alien and a foreign land(India), and may have had vested interests or ignorance, but this particular source is a book written by the court judge of the Nizam of the state of Hyderabad, which, in the times this book was written, was a very well known and powerful state of the world.

The writer was a native inhabitant of the land he has written about and was also trusted by the Ruler(who was also a native inhabitant of this dominion) himself since he was his courtier.This writer was a highly positioned senior level judge in the state of Hyderabad.

Everyone is welcome for any further discussion, just please don't delete any data which You may not imagine to be factual prior to discussing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:1489:1F8B:B5B0:3254:E6DD:1EC5 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The other source was removed because we have no idea what it is, not because it was from the Raj era. Yes, the website hosts various theses etc but we need a proper citation - author, title, page, year etc - and finding that is often a real pain on that site. - Sitush (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it is nonsense anyway. I mean, the chapter cited begins with "Brahmins, as a community, are historically the oldest [community in India]", which is rubbish. For example, what about the indigenous Dravidians? - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

As for the Nizam's Dominions source, the title page of the book makes it clear it was published in 1920, which is well inside the Raj era. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I will provide this same citation complete with author, title, page, year etc. next time.--2405:205:1489:1F8B:B5B0:3254:E6DD:1EC5 (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This Shodhganga thesis which has been used as a source is not nonsense. As a community(not race) indeed Brahmins are known to be the oldest in India. The word "Brahmin" for priests has been in oral and written use since thousands of years. You Yourself first spoke of the word "Dravidian" which is itself a Sanskrit word used for South India, and You must know that till recent times only Brahmins wrote and spoke in Sanskrit language. And if You have visited South India You must have realized that there are millions of Brahmins who are indigenous Dravidians as well. Similarly if You visit North India You will see millions of fair skinned, Caucasoid people who identify themselves as a tribal or a supposedly lower caste. Even if You leave all this aside, the author of the theses was simply stating a known scientific fact of his times(like he also wrote of how Brahmins are numerically superior which is not at all the case now) which is a very common way to start a theses chapter all around the world. Just because the scientific facts of his times have changed( which I have already explained why) does not undermine the stated facts concerned with the researcher's specialized field of study.

Also for the deleted reference the time era was British Raj but this at that time was technically a different nation so it cannot be termed as a Raj era book. neither the author nor the original audience of the book were British, neither the ruler, nor the functionaries were British, nor the ruled were British. So this book cannot be termed as a Raj era book.--2405:205:1489:1F8B:B5B0:3254:E6DD:1EC5 (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

The thesis issue is currently being discussed at the bottom of WT:INB. I don't think you are going to get your way. The other issue is not negotiable: books from the Raj era are not reliable for matters Indian - this has been discussed time and time again and the outcome has always been the same. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I have zero interest in what You think, including what You think what my way is. I am only concerned with facts.I'll see what the result of the thesis discussion will be.--2405:205:1489:1F8B:B5B0:3254:E6DD:1EC5 (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

"books from the Raj era are not reliable for matters Indian" Are You serious? this does not include books written by Indians on Indians when neither of the Indian is ruled by British--2405:205:1489:1F8B:B5B0:3254:E6DD:1EC5 (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it does. In fact, one of the major problems of the Raj ethnographies was their reliance on Indian informants and translators. They are not reliable and you are not going to change that consensus here or most likely anywhere else on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In the preface of this book the author has clearly mentioned he was an Oxford educated local inhabitant of Hyderabad state so he had no need for translators. Also he was a courtier of the state so he had no need for informants either.--2405:205:1489:1F8B:B5B0:3254:E6DD:1EC5 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. I am Cambridge educated but that doesn't make me a reliable source for my hometown or anywhere/anything else and, in his case, he was bound to be affected by being one of the Nizam's courtiers. The book has been routinely rejected on Wikipedia over many years, and in part because you need also to consider WP:HISTRS. Frankly, I don't think I'm going to respond on this Raj era source point any further because I am fed up of repeatedly having to explain consensus to people who think they know better and don't want to abide by the policies and guidelines that operate on Wikipedia. Ultimately, it is very simple: if you don't like how it is done then you can always write about the subject somewhere else. - Sitush (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not about how I like but about how to write the most accurate information possible. And Oxford and Cambridge are two different universities. If 90 years back You were educated in Oxford and then employed in a respectable position by Your native ruler in the Government of Your own native land anybody would have credited You as a reliable source in Your area of expertise. You are not fed up but running away from a discussion as soon as it started turning constructive, a discussion which You started in the first place. Thanks for Your suggestion to write in other places outside Wikipedia, I'll definitely consider that and at the same time I'll keep on searching for reliable sources which meet the guidelines here.--2405:205:1489:1F8B:E898:39E:7E6D:9B0B (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

And by courtier I don't mean the King's court but the Judicial court of the government which constituted of natives, although in this case the King was a native as well and independent of the British Raj.--2405:205:1489:1F8B:9003:D2FA:7031:FFFF (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Need attention to this propoganda based article

This article needs serious attention. Dadhich community is in millions in and outside India. Multiple people within the community does not believe in this so called historian. So, quality of ground work is under question.

The article is heavy influenced form one source of information from an immature subject: Lawrence Bob. Furthermore, his work has zero source of ground work. By unmatching a claim from a selected source cannot prove it to be wrong. Indian history is much older and complex to be solved by simple means from an alien subject who has no connection to the roots. Secondly, how this writer claims to hold information about multiple religions and communities of India. Even people with-in these communities have a hard time proving 100% claims of his own community. Therefore, this subject has to be moderated or atleast should not be provided a platform for creating doubts in the common people who takes Wikipedia as first source of information. Isn't this still a divide and rule policy of oversimplifying history, assertion of one point of view, degrading understanding between three communities etc.

Many of the communities and cultures called as insignificant at certain older times were still significant as compared to Englishmen tribes.

The subject might be an hero in an university but by no means he should be granted audacity to claim his oversimplified version of history.

We are kindly done from rubbish propoganda based article from Wikipedia. If this doesn't improve, Wikipedia might loose its traction soon. 2.205.14.148 (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)