User talk:MatthewVanitas/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Whats this

at this link you will find probable vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israr_Ahmed#New_Social_Engineering_Program_of_United_Nations_Organizations after checking whether the said author has said this, I found it to be completely false and baseless. I am waiting for references but even if provided, they too might be false or pseudo. Maybe you would like to clean it up in time!! Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Ahirs as OBCs

you mentioned modern ahirs as shudra which is ancient concept and hardly relevent in modern period for modern community.this is also not useful for readers because you alredy deleted good amount of ancient history of this community.so much of tussle going on discussion page both side accusing each other.you as an administrator have responsibility to keep faith in wikipedia of other contributors.so sir ,i request you to use OBCs word instead of Shudra which more relevent today and useful for readers.i hope you will take it positively.Bill clinton history (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not at all an administrator, and any "ancient history" which has been removed has been so because it either was redundant to Abhira tribe and/or failed to demonstrate a linkage to the modern Ahir community. So far as OBC and Shudra, I'll take a look at the page again to ensure that the "Shudra" term is clearly labeled as historical, and the OBC as a modern concept. The Shudra term is hardly "ancient", as it appears the Ahirs were labeled Shudra well up to Independence, following which such official varna designations were phased out, though outside official channels they certainly maintain some vestigial relevance. Long/short, yes, we should ensure the term Shudra is put in proper context, but no, we will not whitewash it from the article to spare hurt feelings. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

ok I agree with you sir,keep shudra in article..but it is only one point of view of a controversial Topic ahir.there are other sources also mentioned them as OBCs, Cowherders,Nomads and Kshtriya.but these points have been completely deleted from article.we should have a comprehensive article for our readers with all relevent point of views from well cited information.it is very common in subject like history,sociology have different point of view of a topic.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

When were cited mentions of cowherds, OBC, and nomads removed? And nobody is objecting to mentioning Kshatriya claims by Ahirs (so long as properly cited), what we're objecting to is lengthy reams of mythology cited as conclusive fact, particularly when those passages are redundant to other articles. The easiest way to avoid edit-warring would be for you to put your suggested text on the Talk page, and ask for comment. If everything checks out, we'll have clear consensus, and it can easily be added and defended in the article by all parties involved. We definitely need to cover all significant sides of the story, but we need to avoid speculation, repetition, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have given some sources with refrence of coeherders and ancient kingdoms of ahirs on discussion page.Bill clinton history (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have the Ahirs page watchlisted, as does Sitush. I suggest you keep all the discussion on that page rather than ping our Talks each time. I'll go check out that page now, but the last time I checked you weren't very clear on which refs you wanted to use, and also I still suggest you provide a sample of what you want to add vice try to gain consensus based on vague intent. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)As was obvious on the Kurmi talk page, you and Sitush do not have any specialised knowledge about the subject - caste, on the other hand you seem to have fairly good working knowledge of Wikipedia, which would have worked fine if the subject had been objective, however caste isn't that easy. I suggest as Bill above has that the Indian and State government classification, should be all that the article should mention, as these are unambiguous, at a given moment. (2)Jews and others were given the lable untermensch, would you use that lable in an article on Jews as a classification? (3)See these lables were given to people, they weren't self-designations. X classified a Y caste as Shudra, what authority did X have to classify a caste thus? Also we have Z a reliable source, that says that Y caste has shrugged that lable, and now has declared itself as no longer Shudra, and is agitating with authorities and with society to be considered so, why do you still make statements like what we're objecting to is lengthy reams of mythology cited as conclusive fact, do you considered the Varna system science, or scientific facts? (4)India under British had sign boards like dogs and Indians not allowed, do articles about Indians and Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, and Myanmarese, and Sri Lankans, and Maldivians, quote fine sources that in certain circumstances these were considered as equivalent to canine? (5)I am using this page as it about your editing and not any particualr article.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Broken record, I think. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The "uttermensch" comparison doesn't fly: that is one specific era in a long history, and German-Jewish relations do not define Jewish identity overall, though it's certainly significant. Kurmi-Brahmin relations, however, are far more fundamental to an understanding of who the Kurmi are, and given that jati/caste/varna identity play a vital role in how Kurmis have functioned in Indian society, they certainly are notable. Again, I'm just not seeing how all of this doesn't boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have never seen anyone on Wiki apply a fraction of this critical mentality towards any "positive" descriptions; POV editors have for too long had free reign to indulge in glorification and puffery. I fear you are trying to guilt-trip us into feeling bad for using the term "Shudra", however I submit it would be far more shameful to whitewash away the discrimination that Kurmis have faced, and the socio-political mechanisms they use to address it. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)Catholic Germany almost wiped out Jews, and you say they don't define Jewish identity, and then you complain that I am stuck in one rut. Gimme a break. (2)You can check my user page's history, it had a Sanskrit verse to the effect that one who is proud about his caste is retarded, I aint a caste chauvinist if that is what you wish to know.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For starters the only relevance of caste in modern India of any importance is Government classification as it is related to affirmative action programmes. PoV, nationalist, Hindutva that is a broken record as Sitush would have put it, get out of that, what is important is wp:DUE, wp:FRINGE and wp:UNDUE, which is regardless of wp:RS.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If the caste only existed at the time of "modern India" then you might have a point. Of course, it has existed for far longer than that. But we have gone through all this before. Something is clearly not sinking in. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that you are not a caste-chauvinist (unlike many others in these debates), and I do respect your concerns about the dangerous implications of caste-history in modern factional conflicts and social/economic discrimination. That said, my concern is that you are whitewashing history to avoid hurt feelings. If we're drawing metaphors, this is like asking all mention of slavery be stricken from African American "since it's degrading, and obsolete, and it was an imposed identity that the community itself didn't approve". A huge number of jatis were considered Shudra in the past, during the British era a large number of them tried to buck that designation, in the modern era many of those jatis articles are written by caste-promoters who are eager to jam in all sorts of Kshatriya superstition and pseudo-history (which, if citeable, is certainly notable) but then weep/wail/gnash-teeth when the full story of varna controversy is brought in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You are using a long redundant terminology, I do not wish to ascribe motives to your actions. It is unfortunate that you have to mine.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And giving that terminology too much weight. That is all my complaint is.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)It would be wrong to single the British era as a period of social upheaval, on the other hand a view is that the British colonial administration made caste rigid[1], for example it is documented that Shivaji's army was not recruited on the basis of Caste[2]. (2)The subject cannot be dealt superficially and the present editors seem to lack the expertise.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The rebuttal to "Sitush and MV lack expertise" would be "YK and TT2011 lack objectivity". Or we could flip the script and note the positive attributes both sides bring. It would be quite lovely if we could combine skillsets. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

• (1)Don't get it wrong. (2)Do you mean to say that you are an expert on caste? (3)All I charge is that the treatment is wp:UNDUE, why does that lack objectivity? I have suggested specific solutions, how does that make my treatment subjective? Below someone is trying to save poor Indian souls, is that objective? In all the long discussion have you offered or solicited any specific alterations? Would that not have been objective? (4)Is there a single line that describes how the Kurmis suffered because of their Shudra status, did I ask you to delete it, that would have been analogus to deleting mention of slavery. (5)Could you not have started from the Shudra article, adding it substance, and then used the word, so that the nomenclature would have been clear? You are using a non-English term whose meaning is not certain? Does it mean depressed classes? If not what is its English equivalent? Who then were the depressed classes?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Terminology and context are integral parts of an encyclopedia article, and we do not write articles as if the past never happened and the hunky-dory present is all that exists. As MatthewVanitas says, that would be like excising all mention that Africans were once used as slaves, on the grounds that being a slave is degrading. Yes, the way many Indian people were treated because of their caste was degrading (and there are clearly a lot of related problems in India still to solve), but that no more degrades any modern Indian individual than describing slavery degrades a modern African American. Oh, and regarding "the present editors seem to lack the expertise", that's the whole point of Wikipedia - it isn't written from personal expertise, it's written from reliable sources, and it's the sources that count in making content decisions -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I'm an expert on caste: I don't hold a PhD in the subject, and I would presume that you do not either. What I am is someone who is very accustomed to seeking and summarising reliable sources, which is fundamental skill on Wikipedia. I am still literally not clear exactly what you would like changed, do you want it taken out of the lede/infobox (I don't think we should even have an infobox), taken out of the varna and political sections or what? I dispute that it's at all UNDUE, as it's present in-context at each point, and varna politics is a prominent aspect of Kurmi (and many jati's) identity and social role. So far as Shurda, I say WP:OSE; whether that article needs fixing or not is no reason to delay dealing with Shudra issues in jati articles. Rather than go round and round and round, how about you go to Talk:Kurmi, start a new section and copy-paste-italicise the specific phrases you would like to see deleted/replaced and why? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

And what's this "saving poor Indian souls" nonsense? I certainly never said anything of the sort - I'm simply saying that we *should* be objective and *should not* modify articles to avoid offence or to hide past context or past injustices -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(1)You are in the dark because you never asked, I solicited to be asked and you are now offering it. (2)I have acknowledged your expertise about Wikipedia. No I am not even an under-graduate, but I have an emic perspective, that makes things easy for me, 35 years of input gives a person a little understanding (assuming I started to read at seven), things have been happening around me, I interact with people, that gives a person knowledge that would require an etic player exceptional effort to gain. (3)I feel the treatment is undue. (4)I disagree with the wp:OSE tag, you are using the term Shudra without clearly defining what it means, clearly we need to get the nomenclature in place before using it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, we have solicited suggestions time and again, but the problem has been mostly that the same suggestions have been put forward even when it has been explained that those particular ones simply will not fit in with how Wikipedia works. Please do not imply that MV or myself have been anything other than open to suggestions. On many occasions we have also asked for clarifications of what you want but, they generally did not appear. This is why I referred to the broken record thing above. - Sitush (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, the issue is not about your or my expertise, it is about sources. I don't doubt your expertise in your field, and I expect your interpretations of old documents is very likely to be better than mine (and, in fact, I won't actually attempt any interpretation myself). The only problem is, your interpretation is no good as a source in Wikipedia, and wouldn't be even if you were the world's finest lexicographer equipped with the best dictionaries. We simply cannot accept your interpretation when you tell us what authors of sources really meant - not even if we think you're right. We have to have clear sources which require *no* interpretation -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)(1)As I wrote on the talk page, what you (zebedee) write is ideal, no arguments regarding what the source should have said to have it to be acceptable. (2)Could we now have a definition of the word Shudra in the context of Kurmi, readers would like to know what Shudra is, what its implications were, once they know that Kurmi were sometime/onetime Shudra. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is utterly pointless. I am tempted to draft something up for ANI on the disruptive/tendentious grounds. - Sitush (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we should not explain Shudra within Kurmi, that is why we have Shudra. If there are aspects of Shudra-ness which are specific to Kurmi _AND_ we have a citation specifically saying "the Kurmi version of Shudra was distinct in that...", yes, we could add that, but not otherwise. That is why we link the term Shudra. If you have problems with that article, fix that article, don't try to fix it indirectly via Kurmi. MatthewVanitas (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)Then don't link it to Shudra, as long as you are not sure that the two are the same. Let readers work it out. (2)In Kurmi Shudras have agricultural communities in brackets, another has Vaishya as agricultural communities, it is like walking on thin ice.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The contradiction doesn't matter from the point of view that other stuff exists. However, I was aware of it and was going to fix the thing when the article got locked down. Now, why did it get fully protected? It will be sorted when we can get in there to edit - not worth bothering an admin to make a one-word fix. - Sitush (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(1)You are sadly mistaken if you think I am using OSE, the example is used to illustrate that the terminology is vague and ambiguous, like Indian would be in the US, does Indian mean Bharatiya or Abya Yala you cannot provide misleading links.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No. What you have shown is that some Wikipedia articles, when compared, are contradictory. Nothing more than that. - Sitush (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)It takes courage to say I was wrong.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Madia Gond

I would like MV and Sitush to have a look at the article Madia Gond, which I created and have been a major contributor. It is also about a community.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

You can ask for it to be peer reviewed. I see little point in getting involved in it because I have enough on my plate dealing with you elsewhere at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh the purpose wasn't review, you are not happy with my talk page performance, I thought you might like to see one of my works, to establish my credetials either way. And also as an example of what I would like a community article to look like.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you now that it has at least one huge copyvio/plagiarism issue in it - the entire Dance section is a copy/paste from the source website. Back to the drawing board there, I think. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Gazette circa 1850s. Copyright has expired.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. The advice remains that you should not plagiarise. Anyway, that's enough from me - the article clearly has quite a few problems even from a quick glance. Take it to another peer review if you are concerned about improving it etc. I simply do not want to get involved with it because the drama that will follow is something I do not relish. - Sitush (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

(od)See article talk.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar

Dear MathewVanitas How are you? Please have a look to the ariticle Swami Nigamananda for its improvement. I really appreciate, I can say you are the director of this article and you contibuted a lot to it. I have formatted this article to a beautiful readable formate and added maximum reliable references(ISBN). Apart from this article, Swami Nigamananda, I have created many more articles like Nilachala Kutir Durga Charan Mohanty Nilachala Saraswata Sangha . I am expecting you to see those and submit your feedback as and when you are free. Best Regards India Dcmpuri (talk) 04:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC/N discussion of the username "I Jethrobot"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of I Jethrobot (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for the work on the article on the Marathas! Suneetk (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

WP Firearms in the Signpost

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Firearms for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Other editors will also have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, MatthewVanitas. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- Sitush (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi

Hello MatthewVanitas. I am just letting you know that I deleted Ghulam Muhammad Vastanvi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. —SpacemanSpiff 19:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Malaise

I never accused anyone of malaise. I have named no one. Perhaps I have a right to ask why I am named and accused of the same.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't at all recall using the word "malaise"; did I use it somewhere? I can't even think of why I would even apply that word to you. I'm more just baffled that you think its appropriate to bug top-ranking Wikipedia personnel with an absolutely ludicrous conspiracy theory off of an anonymous blog. I'm not upset, I actually think it's kind of hilarious, but I"m honestly baffled that you expect that somehow, if you keep pushing, someone is going to say that I'm wrong. I'm putting in a ton of work to improve caste articles, and now you go about spreading what is probably literally slander about me (though I emphasise I have zero interest in the legal aspects of this), and then you come here upset that I allegedly used the word "malaise"? This is simply ridiculous. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It has been reported that the fellow who bombed Oslo has been preparing hard since 2009. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What on earth does that mean? Are you drawing some kind of comparison between me and him? That's a terrible Personal Attack if it is. I suggest you either retract or explain. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You wrote on user talk:Yogesh Khandke, Yogesh, just today you've compared me to the Oslo bomber and also keep, and keep, and keep dragging up an absolutely ludicrous assertion from some random blog. If you had brought it up once in an appropriate arbitration committee, fine, that'd be your right, but you and MW have attempted to spread these smears across every page you possibly can, and rather than follow formal proceses went running to the founder of WP. Jimbo, by the way, did not say "awesome call, this needs looking into", he basically said it seemed unlikely but that if anyone has actual evidence they should submit it. It is appropriate to question others editing practices, it is edgy but sometimes necessary to accuse others of documentable bias. It is inappropriate to speculate "I bet So-and-So did that because he's Catholic/Hindu/Inuit/Ainu", and it is completely, ludicrously inappropriate to compare someone to a terrorist, and to continually spread completely unsubstantiated accusations about another editor simply because you disagree with his editing. If you do this literally one more time, I'm putting a grievance against you for blatant personal attacks. Feel free to dislike and critique my editing, but your recent comments are totally out of line. Reply: You are jumping the gun and putting words in my mouth, please keep the thread in one place. All I want to say is this [3], which is also all that I have ever said. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You are free to do whatever you wish/can do. Though I know it is easy to take action against some, I can't however be coerced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Any way something completely tangential to the discussion, the bloke is described as militant by the Times of India, the world's largest circulating English newspaper. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, explain it to me like I'm a four year old: how on earth is "No MV you do a reassessment. You are mis-handling to whole issue" related to the Oslo bombing? Not a riddle, you're the one drawing a comparison. And you failed to respond to my asking where I accused you of malaise, and then insist I'm putting words in your mouth? How can I possibly read your above without assuming you're comparing me to the Oslo bomber? Regarding "keep it on one page", no these are different issues: I'm telling you I will take you to ANI if you attempt to smear anyone using that silly blog again. You have no reason to link to ludicrous accusations off-site except to attack others credibility. And you can quit your silly attempts to defend as "I don't support the blog, I just think it's interesting", especially as you've deflated those yourself with your implications that "it's just a matter of time" until Jimbo investigates and bans us over an unsourced blog. These are blatant personal attacks, and you're not backing off from them in the slightest. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ton of work improve, well you can't be your own judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Does anyone think that people are retarded and think it is about money? (I said the same thing to Zeebedee, four days ago[4]) Or is a lot of noise being made to divert attention, also check this[5]. There is another editor with whom I won't interact, not atleast unless I see a paradigm shift in his behaviour, (he even reverted talk page edits [6]), if you think I am a pain in your neck, I won't let my shadow fall on you, I am wasting your time because you came across as reasonable to me. Please let me know. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

This is not a mature way to handle this, all these vague jabs and "you figure it out"s. This is ridiculous. Are you saying "MV, you think you're improving things, but the Oslo bomber thought he was improving things too, so clearly you are both incorrect and doing more harm than good in your attempts to improve things." If so, why not be an adult and just say that? Or be even more adult, and express your concerns without comparing me to a terrorist? MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You used a simile, I used sarcasm, if you can use a figure of speech I too can, or are some people disallowed?? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I am that other editor. I reverted some crap that Yogesh kept putting on my page, simply because it was distracting me from something rather more important. He has never yet succeeded in any of his numerous complaints to admins about me but has been warned for his own behaviour towards me. Go figure. - Sitush (talk) 18:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

YK, again: if you don't believe the blog is accurate, why did you just today say: Such an attitude was the reason for my bringing the blog to the notice of the founder. Every one should remember that he has promised to look at the issue, it is only a matter of months. You are blatantly using this blog (whether you personally believe it or no) to imply that I/Sitush/CT/BsZ are under investigation and will be booted when the "truth" comes out, which is ludicrous. You're playing coy little games, but clearly talking out of both sides of your mouth to avoid committing to any stance and thus being hit for personal attacks, but you've established quite a clear pattern of those. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Incompetent handling of a subject, and incompetent admin role. wp:COMPETENCE. Anyways if you want to hang me, try, I've had enough of bluster.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• I was shocked to see CarTick, we had a few punches thrown at each other over the time, but I don't have a grudge against him, or anybody for that matter, CarTick I've mentioned because I am sorry that he is not around and I miss him. We (u n me) have had a limited interaction, I am sorry for that talk page reverter, I wondered then, "What on the earth does a person do this for" (I am not saying this sarcastically, believe me I am saying this from my heart)? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

• • Well it is almost 1.00 am, I and I'll be taking the bails off, in a few minutes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I spoke with CarTick recently. He is fine, although glad not to have to deal with all the POV pushing going on at present. He is ok with how the articles look & a little concerned about the socks and the attacks. Does that help you? - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Take us and BsZ to ANI, then. You have been told this umpteen times. Oh, I forgot, you did that and got nowhere. When will you learn? - Sitush (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yogesh, I had forgotten about that revert which you have now sneakily inserted into your earlier post. Were you aware that the other person in that discussion is an admin? She saw those reverts. Did she take any action against me? No, she pretty just told you to shut up, but more politely than that. Subsequently, she complained about you at ANI. - Sitush (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

MV, If I weren't involved, and I'd seen the above Oslo bomber quote, and then the fact that xe refused to retract the statement, I'd have immediately blocked for NPA. Don't worry about taking it to ANI; I'll do it myself, right now, on the basis of that comment alone. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and wow. Catching up from the sidelines, where I've been vaguely watching some of the battles, I'm regretting my comments from a mere two weeks ago, [7]. My optimism has largely vanished. Amazed that you and others have not walked away, been driven away. I know I would have. Pfly (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nameisnotyaddayaddayadda

FFS! - Sitush (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For sub-categorization of the items in Category:Rajputs. Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests

One small note about edit requests. Those who are "readers" (i.e., not really editors) may not actually even know about the talk page's existence. If a page is semi-protected, there's a button that a user can push that says something like "Suggest a change to this article". That gives the user a pop-up box to fill in what they think needs to be change; when they submit it, it automatically goes onto the article talk page. So the IP who asked about kshatriya may be genuinely unaware of the massive conversation. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't know that either. The code needs rewriting! - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Rajput

is this source of any use to you? - Sitush (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is, esteemed Sitush, that you aren't Indian and simply can't understand India. The "rigid" social structures are actually quite fluid and it's impossible to define any group concretely as... oh, wait. Nevermind.  ;) . MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You may not have noticed in all of the recent kerfuffle, but Qwryxian stripped the 36 races out of Rajput clans earlier today on the basis that Tod is not RS. He has commented on the talk page. Surprisingly, there has not been a nuclear incident yet. The plan is to take it straight to WP:RSN if there should be any dissenting viewpoints, and then apply the outcome from RSN across all articles (ie: if RSN agree that it is unreliable then strip Tod from the lot). It is a bold move and he has more guts than I have, but it is based on sound argument. I shall be putting James Tod up for WP:GAN in the next three days, having had three different admins look over it in the last 24 hours or so precisely because I wanted an opinion regarding whether, given what the article says, Tod is RS. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

? - Oh, okay, out of Rajput clans, not out of 36 royal races. FWIW, I do think that there should be mention of Tod on 36 royal races purely on a historiographical basis. I'm still just pleased with myself for having put up a tamper-proof page-cap that both provides "the list" and also keeps IPs from mucking with it. Though I'm still annoyed that there technically is an RS that says "Tod says Ahirs are one of the 36 royal races" when Tod's actual list says no such thing. If an otherwise RS says something verifiably untrue (such as misquoting someone) can that be removed by common sense, or is that OR? Or, is that subject to endless wikilawyering with "well, maybe Dr Smith read Tod's 1832 version and not the 1834 version you're using... maybe-possibly-theoretically..." MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

What is the wayward RS? - Sitush (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Varna discussion

Greetings. There is a discussion in Talk:Kamma_(caste). Please can you give your response there. thank you.Foodie 377 (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

To MatthewVanitas

I have left a message for you in the Kamma Discussion Page. Thanks. --= No ||| Illusion = (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Mayasutra

Infoboxes and varna

I assume you watch User Talk:Sitush, but just to clarify your input would help on Varna infoboxes. Of course, we eventually need to take this to a wider audience, but easier to start with fewer. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

As I said above, I've taken Yogesh to ANI, in the course of which I mentioned your name; you can see and respond to the discussion at WP:ANI#Personal attacks by Yogesh Khandke. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Bill

Thanks Matthewvanitas for your guidance.Bill clinton history (talk) 07:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#How_to_deal_with_tendentious_editing.3F. You are not named: this is just so you know, given your heavy involvement. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

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. - moved from WP:AN per request of Fowler&fowler. - Sitush (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It really has been going on for a long time. - Sitush (talk) 22:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed

Hi Mathew. When you have time, can you please go over the following edit @ Kunduz Province. The IP has added percentages and used a source which cannot be verified. According to all the sources, Pashtuns are in majority in Kunduz. Discussion page, [this source and Kunduz_Province#Districts might help as well. This IP clearly has an anti-Pashtun POV agenda based on his current contribution. I really don't know why admins consider his edits as content dispute rather than disruptive editing and vandalism. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC))

the caste template

In which pages has the Caste template been used? Is there a list? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Use the "What links here" on the template page; for the caste page, that gives us [8], which shows around 70 inclusions (rough estimate), a few of which are talk pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Source check

If you can see it, please could you have a look around page 277 of this. I am expecting it to say something about a Muslim ruler's tolerance towards Hindus in Kashmir c. 15th C. - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Says "No Preview" - can't get anything. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for trying. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tain Museum

In May you commented about this proto-article; thank you very much for those comments.

Some work has subsequently done with the result now at Tain Museum.

Please cast your eye over this again and let us know your assessment.

Thanks - MrDuthac (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

reply

I invite you to this discussion [9] Pass a Method talk 01:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

did you know anything about indian history

do you know who was Khafi khan and who was jayram, khafi khan was mughal historian and jayaram was poet of shivaji court in 17th century , the claims made by dalits is just a way to motivate the low esteem dalit people, plz provide one evidence of shivaji belonging to non-rajput origin which dates back to shivaji era(not books by historians) just because Einstein is einstein it dont mean we will believe anything similarly untill not evidence is given to prove shivaji non-rajput origin nothing can be said or written, i guess shivaji know more about himself than jadunath sarkar and he was sure about his rajput origin and untill no evidence is provided i will not let any non-rajput origin came in the way because history is made by evidences and not by historians.115.240.7.109 (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Actually, you're wrong, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. We always look to what historians have said about subjects, not what a primary source may or may not mean. In fact, as a general rule, primary sources aren't even allowed as verification on Wikipedia. Now, I don't even know what article you're talking about, but if the bulk of historians are saying one thing, and one specific letter from 400 years ago says another, Wikipedia will side with the historians, every time. We may, depending on the exact details, also include the info about the old source, but that depends on a lot of complicated issues to be worked out via consensus. However, please do not attempt to edit Wikipedia focusing only on what one specific historical document says; that violates several of our policies, and so can't be allowed. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

give evidences

if you are on wikipedia for so much time then plz give me one single piece of evidence from shivaji era(not now) which gives the fact that shivaji was not a rajput, so first give the evidence just as i have did, the letter of shahji(siivaji father) is still in ghorpade museum which he writes in 1643 in which he calls himself a rajput and the link is already provided, historians with vested interests specially dalits are trying to claim shivaji in order to show their bravery but first give evidence then their will be additional origin of shivaji but untill then only rajput origin because historians no matter how much famous they are dont create any evidence you need evidence from that era.115.240.7.109 (talk) 08:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Please check the book by noted historian Jadunath Sarkar on how the brahmins of the day regarded Shivaji as a Shudra and how he in turn got the learned Gaga bhatt to create a Kshtriya lineage for him in order to get crowned. The book also talks about the greediness of the brahmins of the day.[10],page 242. The gbook is searchable. . When the local brahmins denied his Kshatriya claim, Shivaji in turn asked all his brahmin administrators to resign and get back to their traditional pursuit of puja and surviving on "bhikshuki". The book or certainly this section is very entertaining.

Also if Maloji Bhosle cared much about his Rajput Hindu heritage, would give names with islamic undertones to his kids such as Shahaji and Sharifji ? All these varnas are /were created by brahmins for their own benefits. Did Shivaji really need the stamp of being Rajput to gain respect ? I don't think so. After all,the brahmins of the day were happy to serve him before he got Gaga to create a Rajput genealogy for him. For me, his Maratha identity is enough. I don't care about a lineage from a far away land like Rajputana. Shivaji and Shahaji were Marathi Bhoomiputra and that is good enough. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

yes this shows the knowledge of history the sons of maloji named shahji and sharifji because the sons were born after a muslim sufi saint "Shah Sharif" give some food(Sawai-muslim dish) to maloji so that his wife can bear sons and from their came the name shahji and sharifji. OMG these are wikipedia administrators who do not know how the muslim names of maloji son came. Second who the hell is jadunath sarkar was he their when the so called local brahmins refused shivaji. And whats the gurantee that if shivaji was coronated by local brahmins then these historians would have not "accused him of getting coronated by a local marathi brahmin who has no reputation". Be it "albert einstein or issac newton" all of them have to prove the fact and not to speculate and second James tod is much bigger and better historian(not only historian but an arachaelogist as well, findings of many ancient artifacts are credited to that man). Similarly many historian "KHAFI KHAN" was a mughal historian of 17th century and he knew more about Shivaji rather than the useless jadunath sarkar, India's best historian was "RC MAJUMDAR" but unfortunately he did not do much work on shivaji his interest was Maurya empire and chandragupta similarly many other prominent indian historian like RK MOOKERJEE(also the former MP of indian Parliement) did not do any work on it therefore we cannot take the voice of only one man Jadunath sarkar. Khafi khan and James tod are much closer to Shivaji era and has better understanding the non-rajput origin claim started as late as 20th century(300 years after shivaji death) which itself shows the dubious intention of those who create such claims. And things like "Brahmins were given money to make Shivaji a rajput then how about this why shivaji didnt give money to local brahmin infact as a marathi he should be more partial towards shivaji."

Things like this "that local brahmins refuseds shivaji" or "gaga bhatt was give so much money" these will come in category of speculations and not evidence and DR RK MOOKERJEE once said "SPECULATION has no space in history". Let the ancient facts be their and provide the facts and evidences which prove non-rajput origin of Shivaji. I am betting right here i will not make a single edit on wikipedia after that if someone can furnish a single evidence from Shivaji era of his non rajput origin. further if i am not wrong the Persian sanads(documents) released by mudhol state was after jadunath sarkar wrote his book the persian sanads prove it beyond doubt that Shivaji house(satara) and thanjjore were descendants of sisodia rana of mewar.122.161.14.246 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

second thing mate to say that one historical account i dont think so the historical accounts which prove shivaji rajput origin is confirmed by all writers be it hindu, muslims, persian. The indian writers and historians of 17th 18th century have confirmed shivaji rajput origin, mughal historian khafi khan(the documents are kept in aligarh muslim univ(AMU),UP dept of historical records of mughal era), and by persian sanads now what you want so mate to dismiss these 7-8 historical accounts just because one famous historian(jadunath sarkar) say so will be completely wrong and will show bias the fact is that the article do mention that Jadunath sarkar opposed the theory and similarly it mentions all the historical accounts(all of them point towards sisodia origin) then why are some editors so nervous let the users decide which is right and which is wrong the article gives various origin(though only one is supported by evidences). By that can we say that Alexander the great was defeated by Hindu King Porus because most historians write that alexander faired poorly against Indian King Porus. Therefore i think you guys are not going through the complete article infact most of you are strongly biased know almost nothing about shivaji and his family(the user who said that how maloji named his sons sharif and shahji) Dont mind but the "JI " you see in the names of these marathi rajputs have come from SINH(rajput title) the corruption of word "SINH" turn it into "JIH OR JI" but i guess most of you are very innocent of indian history and grammer.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"It is related that Shahji's father Maloji was childless for a long time, and it was only after he had prayed at the tomb of a Muslim saint Shah Sharif that he was blessed with two sons, one in 1594 and the other in 1597". ... i guess from most of your attitude i fear for neutrality on this great site(no offence some editors are great), the thing which i have understood is that most of you are completely ignorant of shivaji life and history.

That user who said why a rajput will name his son "SHAH JI AND SHARIF JI" i guess i have answered your question now take this "VIR HAMIR SINGH" hamir is a muslim name isnt it but he was a sisodiya rajput(shivaji ancestor) who defeated alaudin khilji army and recapture the rajasthan from muslims. Take this "GULAB SINGH" the hindu rajput general of Sikh empire who led sikh forces in the capture of kashmir, multan, yousafzai tribes who was once regarded as right hand of "MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH" of sikh empire . Now most commonly "gulab" is a muslim name. Your question is so silly that it made me scare that editors like you edit pages on wikipedia and editors like me who hold far superior knowledge is cornered so that the truth (or say one opinion) does not come out in open.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

oh yeah shahji was a marathi bhoomiputra!!!!! , who the hell said you the letter of shahji which is kept in ghorpade museum in which he wrote to adil shah he clearly wrote that he is "RAJPUT" and not a marathi bhoomiputra. Who is the CM of maharastra Prithviraj Chavan he is a rajput just because chauhan become chavan dont mean he is not a rajput and second thing what you want to say , you are asking me to delete those because those facts and evidences prove the rajput origin of shivaji. The poem on shahji was composed 23 years before shivaji coronation and it mentions maloji as the descendant of rana of mewar. Now what that poet too is a marathi brahmin search the legendary marathi poet of 17th century who also was in shivaji court. Most important thing just as you all know gaga bhatt what was the name of that so called created Marathi brahmin who refused shivaji demand to coronate him, this is nothing but speculation how can anyone know this was their any writing from that time which prove this fact and if gaga bhatt was greedy why not a single marathi brahmin was greedy even though poet of jayaram is a marathi brhamin and he mentions maloji as rajput of mewar . The claims of 20th century needs to be dismissed as a pure fiction.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

and you plz read the book by much more noted historian,archaelogists and head of british india intelligence Col james tod and sir williamson hunter their books prove it without any doubt the rajput origin of not only shivaji but many more maratha generals and soldiers like "RANE","MORE""JADHAV""DESHMUKH""CHAVAN""PAWAR".

i think most people here refer to only jadunath sarkar because he is opposing rajput origin what about HC ojha he is also one of the most prominent indian historian and what about much more famous and more noted historian Col James tod he was criticized by many but his works are just too solid to be challenged , even einstein was challenged and mocked when he gave theory of relativity and now everyone of us know einstein because of that and not because of photoelectric effect.HC OJHA and Col James tod easily tackle the questions raised by historians who oppose rajput origin.122.161.14.246 (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

sorry but i fear that editors with knowledge like you handle all these articles, if you want delete that from shivaji page but wil you not violate wiki policy that as many origins should be proposed. Similarly one of you said one historical account. Are you serious khafi khan was a well known historian in mughal era who used to sit in delhi. Similarly at one side the critics are saying marathi brahmin refused to coronate shivaji its false because the writer of poems on shivaji and shahji is a marathi brahmin himself , similarly many poets of that era who were brahmins clearly mention shivaji as rajput. Further now its impossible to find his real caste but those people who have live their whole lives with shahji,maloji and shivaji were fully aware of their rajput origin now whatever you try you cannot have surety. The evidences are from indian writer, from mughal writers and from persian writers and if someone says that this is one historical evidence then its disgusting and shows the bias. Jadunath sircar point is already their so is rajput origin let both remain and let the reader decide some will say shivaji a rajput some will say shivaji a non rajput.But the big fact if shivaji is not rajput then what was his caste did sir jadunath sircar answered this question , has anyone of us seen "Nuclear forces" answer is no but untill any alternate explanation is given till then nuclear forces will remain like that similarly the non-rajput origin is under cloud some claim he is lingayat, some balippa, some hoysale and some claim he was dalit . I guess most of you will try to see the reasoning sir jadunath sircar was great historian but many great historians do not agree with each other. The best example is of marxist historian such as rs sharma, romilla thapar the books by them are banned(yes banned) in india top most univ such as DU(DELHI UNIV), BHU(Benaras hindu univ), even AMU(aligarh muslim univ). The most trusted historian in india was RC MAJUMDAR most university of india recommend one rc majumdar and hc raychoudhari in foreign writers sir alexander cunningham and vincent smith names are eminent but unfortunately not a single of these writers wrote about shivaji origin. But james tod contribution to indian history is equal to that of vincent a smith and cunningham in foreign writers and he proved shivaji rajput origin, therefore sircar views are not undisputable at all.122.161.14.246 (talk) 08:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Those who are saying most historians have this view is mainly false because apart from sir jadunath sircar no prominent historian opposes shivaji rajput origin. Historians such as Col James tod and HC ojha consider shivaji and many more maratha as rajputs they further stated that neither the colour nor language of these maratha matched those of dravidians(south india people). The thing can be said if atleast one of the major historians such as rc majumdar, hc raychoudhari or rk mookerji have confirmed it but none of them wrote anything about shivaji origin(though rc majumdar wrote extensively on shivaji but not his origin).122.161.14.246 (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me just say that I only scanned all of that, but one thing caught my eyes at the end: James Tod is one of the best examples of terrible sources that we could ever use on India related articles. Tod is well known to have written only what his benefactors told him, without doing any fact checking of his own. This, in fact, is a problem with using many of the older sources. We need to focus on high quality scholarship, not "histories" written by interested parties. If your other sources are similar in quality, I can understand why MV may have undone your edits. Finally, please note that no one is going to read such a massive text like you've written above; you need to be more concise if you want to be heard. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

and let me tell you a second class editor like you will JUDGE "JAMES TOD" hahahahaha this is going to be the most disgusting day of my life. The most well researched articles are that by james tod. Almost all univeristy have a course on James tod his life and achievements in india, among foreign historians only 3-4 names pop up one is sir cunningham, va smith and mostly james tod. The fact that this is called partiality you dont like tod because he writes against you similarly i dont like marrxists historians such as thapar but many like her this is called the natural tendency of human. James tod name is also among very very few which is recognized by Indian Parliement. Jadunath sarkar is lucky that india's greatest historian RC MAJUMDAR skips the origin of shivaji otherwise his word would have ended the discussion just as he has done with chandragupta origin. Further what about GH OJHA the great historian of repute from india . Jadunath sarkar has one of the most limited knowledge apart from mughals and all that he never did any work whereas much better historians are rg bhandarkar, rc majumdar, hc raychoudhari, rk mookerji and km panikkar. Yes jadunath sarkar himself belngs to lower caste(strike the interested party argument). The thing is human nature Tod is always rated above sarkar and most of indian historians his word is the final word when historians of likes romilla thapar who call herself pioneer of ancient india(even though she did not know sanskrit, pali) then any historian will be dubbed as great. And second thing i have seen the knowledge of wiki editors hahahaha they are illeterates with no education or very little for example " why maloji kept muslim names for his sons sharifji and shahji" do you think you guys have any right over shivaji who dont know the reason for this incident. I guess most of you are simply jobless who remain on net 24 hours and do one thing try to show themselves as the greatest historian ever!!!! further GH ojha is enough to tackle the useless jadunath sarkar who has not suggested any alternate and without alternate their is nothing neither science nor history. 115.241.246.57 (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Q, and IP, I would suggest you post a cogent summary of your concerns on Talk:Shivaji. Note that accusing others of ignorance and making inflammatory statements is not going to help your case, and neither is appealing to centuries-old texts. Your best bet would be to do the Wikipedia standard, and calmly/dispassionately state a case using modern, recognised historical authorities. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Responding to IPs comment above: Sorry, no, I'm not passing judgment on Tod, it's the general community of Indian historians. Please read James Tod#Reputation, which has more than a dozen references explaining problems with Tod. Note, it also says that Tod is revered in certain Indian communities, but that's because he praised those communities and said things not supported by other historical references. His word isn't even close to the "final word" for Indian historians. Based on the clear evidence presented there, a large number of Wikipedia editors (including those not directly involved in Indian articles) consider Tod to not meet our reliable sources guidelines. Unless you can somehow present references that refute that large body of research showing Tod's problems, he cannot be used to verify anything on Wikipedia (other than his own words and opinions). I don't understand most of what you wrote, because you're using all sorts of names that I don't know, don't give any references, etc. However, I will tell you what I do understand: the personal attacks. If you don't stop them (calling people illiterates with no education, for example) you will be blocked, because personal attacks are forbidden on Wikipedia. As MV says, we work calmly, using modern authorities, not the very old, biased references we happen to prefer, or primary sources. I hope you can agree to change your editing style; you obviously know a lot, but if you're just going to be combative, then you're not going to be able to employ that knowledge on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)