Jump to content

Talk:Dodai tribe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodai tribe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated false edits and removal of genuine sources

[edit]

@Sir Calculus has repeatedly removed genuine sources and edits, including ones made by me a few months ago. I do not know the reasons, except for the fact that he might have an agenda to claim tribes belonging to the Baloch ethnicity as Sindhi. I request for my previous edit to be restored (not possible at the moment due to page restrictions), and for future restrictions on page edits and/or action against Sir Calculus regarding bias and not working to the benefit of the encyclopedia. RealEricson (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dodai_tribe&oldid=1225770831
Original edit by me,which was removed without reason RealEricson (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd. First of all, assume good faith and stop WP:PERSONAL. This may lead to a block.
Secondly, you significantly modified the previous lead and you also removed an academic ref in one section. Your source is not RS. Read WP:RAJ. And thirdly, I have not reverted your "few months ago" edits on this article, another editor did. Matter of fact, you modified mine. Read WP:PERSONAL before you lead yourself to a block. Sir Calculus (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnn't realize someone else made the edit, there's been a massive edit war going on regarding this page (which led to its editing restrictions) and considering that the user who removed my edits reverted it to your version I assumed meat puppetry https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MEAT&redirect=no .
The academic reference was removed because no other cited source in the article mentioned the Kulachi as a subtribe of the Dodais, neither yours nor mines. It's true that I significantly changed the page, but I added more than I modified. The two new sections added were backed by a genuine source and since they considered history rather than caste they don't fall under https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RAJ&redirect=no. Yet these were also removed without reason, and you didn't care to revert them considering it's authenticity.
We can disagree on the matter of origins of the tribe, but why was the history section deleted? If you don't have any reason to give, I think at least that section should be restored https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:DRNE&redirect=no
I'll agree to not accuse you of any under- lying motives assuming good faith but you need to reply to the points I made and at least agree to restore part of, if not all of my removed edits. RealEricson (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The academic reference was removed

Articles rely on academic references.

The two new sections added were backed by a genuine source and since they considered history rather than caste they don't fall under

The source you added does not qualify RS. It is from 1904. WP:RAJ still applies. For history, we should not be using sources older than 1951. The sections you added concern history of the mentioned tribes. The source is literally called "The Baloch race".

you didn't care to revert them considering it's authenticity

As aforementioned, your added source is not RS.

I think at least that section should be restored

You can reinstate those sections as long as the source meets WP:RS. The Baloch race one does not. Attempt gathering another one. Preferably recent. Cheers. Sir Calculus (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Raj sources have older sources cited like Tarikh I Firishta (available in urdu). So there's no question about their authenticity regarding history. I didn't cite it since in my opinion adding a readable english source was better.
If you insist that 'the Baloch race' cannot be used as a source, I'll simply add the Tarikh I Firishta as a reference for my deleted History section.
As for the claim regarding Baloch origins of the Dodai, I do have a second source 'Re-Thinking Punjab: The reconstruction of Saraiki Identity' by Hussain Ahmed Khan published in 2004, ISBN9789698623098.The part that mentions the Dodais as Balochs who came to Punjab with the Rinds (from Balochistan) is itself sourced from a Pakistani District Census Report of Multan published in 1998.
I simply need permission to edit the page to be able to restore my edit. RealEricson (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles, especially on history, rely on reliable secondary sources. Follow WP:SCHOLARSHIP when improving articles. Tarikh-i-Firishta is a primary text from the 17th century, it was popular in WP:RAJ sources.[1] If you wish to add something from that primary text then cite a recent academic source which supports the text.
We cannot use a census report for a history related article. It is not RS. I made the same mistakes at Kalhora and many other articles before fellow editors helped me. Regarding, H.A Khan's publication. It appears to be highly questionable. It mentions Daudpotra as Baloch in "some sources", a claim that is WP:FRINGE, then proceeds to cite Pakistani district census reports from 1998 as his source. He does that for all history in that section. Including the part you wish to include in the article. Additionally, the book's focus is on the Siraiki issue. Not relevant to the article. The author was "motivated and urged" to undertake research on the Siraiki issue.[2] Sir Calculus (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Guenther, A. (2018). Tārīkh-i Firishta. In D. Thomas (ed.), Brill.
  2. ^ Khan, H. A. (2004). Re-thinking Punjab: The Construction of Siraiki Identity. Pakistan: National College of Arts.

RAJ & RS

[edit]

@Balash-Vologases This article is within the scope of WP:GS/CASTE and is a contentious topic under WP:CT/IPA. Kindly read WP:RAJ and do not violate the community consensus. Do not engage in the removal of cited page content and academic RS refs as you have here. You cannot add colonial era refs as they are not RS and are not allowed under IPA articles as per community consensus, see WP:RAJ. You cannot use self-published books as refs as they are unreliable, see WP:SELFPUB. Do not remove the ECP as you have here. I am going to assume that was an unintentional mistake. I have reverted your edit. Please thoroughly read WP:RS and avoid unreliable sources as this is a contentious topic under community discretionary sanctions. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAJ is a personal opinion article, not a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Balash-Vologases (talk) 18:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RAJ is not merely the personal opinion of a few editors; there have been numerous past discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, all of which agree that outdated colonial sources should not be used for caste-related topics. I understand that it is not one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, much like many other commonly followed guidelines. However, there are several issues with using them, including concerns outlined in WP:AGE, WP:3rd party, and WP:BIASED. I reiterate that Raj-era sources are not used for topics related to anthropology, including castes, clans, tribes, or households. This practice is well-documented, supported by a broad and longstanding community consensus, and is unlikely to change. For more details, please refer to the main article on WP:RS and the longstanding discussions under WP:RAJ. Sir Calculus (talk) 18:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to ask a question about this source[1] Is this source also included in that policy? The book was written in 2016. I would appreciate if you replay with referring WP Policies Balash-Vologases (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The source you have added is perfectly acceptable. However, verify the context in which you will use it. As it is a scholarly biography on Napier. Sir Calculus (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Beasley, Edward (2016). The Chartist General. Taylor & Francis. p. 214. ISBN 978-1-315-51728-5.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dodai_tribe&oldid=1263805106"