Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:36, 18 September 2011

India Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Lodhi Rajputs → Lodhi — The article refers to them as "Lodhi", the "Rajput" seeming an unneccesary qualifier. Though there is a Batani Pashtun tribe called "Lodi", I don't see any other "Lodhi" to distinguish these Rajputs from. So propose moving to Lodhi in the interests of having the most concise title. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removing uncited legendary origin; can anyone source this?

I have searched but been unable to find any cites for the following. Can anyone source this?

MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Mathew have you ever read rigveda, Manusmriti or Shiv pura if not than go it and see . You can have English translation of these oldest literature of HINDU/ Sanatan Religion. There u can find what lodhies are. I have already given few links. No where in Hindu scripture Lodhis are titled as Shudra, they are titled as warriors. U have read Jains book which has been written just 5 or 10 years back, you are give it as resource? Jains also have one gotra of Lodha,go and search it.It shows that these lodhas are converted to Jainism.

I can ready to give many sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur (talk • contribs) 19:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read some parts of Rig Veda in translation but that is not really the point. We have a policy regarding primary sources here on Misplaced Pages and I am afraid that you are falling foul of it. We simply do not have the expertise to interpret what a primary source might say, to put it into context and to evaluate its accuracy etc. For this reason, we do not use them. We rely instead on reliable secondary sources and it is necessary that all statements added to articles are verifiable to such sources.

Your recent edits, and those of 5 September, relied either on primary sources or were completely unsourced & otherwise somewhat problematic. For this reason they have been reverted. I am pleased that you are now talking after the numerous warnings and attempts to engage you in conversation, but it does not alter the fact that the information which you have contributed is unsuitable in its current form. Given that you are now clearly edit warrinf and have broken the three revert rule despite being forewarned about it, I would strongly suggest that you revert the article to its state prior to your most recent edits (the "undo" link should do it) & continue the discussion here. You are likely to be blocked from editing if you do not. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sitush/ Mathew Date – 17/9/2011

I don’t know who u r? if u r Indian u must read Ved, Purans, Sahmitas. I will give direct links. If some body running such a site/ or editing, In Indian context he must have knowledge of Ved, Purans, Sahmitas etc, or if u do not have, hire such peoples. I have created this page way back in 2008; resume it to its earliest condition, from then only we start discussion on Topic LODHI

Regards

Yogendra Singh Lodhi

User:Kunwaryogendrasinghlodhikheriyarafatpur (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2011

As explained above, we cannot use primary sources. You need to find some secondary sources that support your view and even then this does not necessarily mean that your view alone is shown in the article. If there is more than one opinion among reliable sources then we must reflect the various opinions, not whitewash the article with one or another of them. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 06:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

If there is more than one opinion among reliable sources then we must reflect the various opinions,... I don't agree. All the caste articles are stinking because of attitude like this. It makes no sense to say X says A, Y says B, Z says C.... What can the reader make of it?MW 07:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, you may not agree but Sitush is correct here. If there is disagreement among the reliable sources then all we can do is reflect this disagreement. It's not up to us to decide the "truth" of the matter, even if we believe we know what it is. Kim Dent-Brown 23:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kim Dent-Brown. I happen to have familiarized myself with WP:NPOV. I have no difficulty with NPOV and I like it. However, is it OK to cook up a sentence of the type "X says A, Y says B, Z says C..." by doing misrepresentations on passing comments from unreliable sources which we did not/could not read ?MW 23:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC) When I read WP:V and WP:NOR, besides other points, I gather that:

• Misrepresentations is not allowed.
• Whatever is adduced from passing comments is OR.
• Unreliable sources should not be used.
• We must be having an EXPLICIT sources for whatever we say. Unclear statements will not do.
• Coufusing statements cannot be used as sources.

Is it right to ditch all these points?MW 00:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please can you explain where in the article your above points apply? We have, of course, gone through this general issue on several other articles but feel free to start over on this one. At least we will then be moving forward. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

You guys never seem to see any value in any of these points, even when the misrepresentation/ passing comment/ unreliable source concerns are plainly clear. So, it is important to first establish the value of these points. Let us first see what Kim Dent-Brown has to say on this.MW 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

To avoid duplication, please refer to my 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) comment below. Will post it here too if needed.MW 03:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have no objection to saying "X says A, Y says B, Z says C". (I know very well that this is normal and is done all over WP.) But it is not OK to do so when X, Y, Z are all making passing comments only. That is what I was trying to say and would have gone on to explain in any case, as I am doing now.MW 11:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Shudra

I have reinserted the content relating to the shudra term that was recently removed by MangoWong, and amended the statement slightly by specifying that this is a former classification and detailing that it was per the varna system. It is a statement of fact supported by a reliable source and therefore has its place in this article. And, before you ask, one sentence supported such as in this context is never undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I have further reverted recent removals of the information noted above, which was replaced by a long list and by a statement which seemed to rely on a primary source (Rig Veda). Please can we discuss such changes here before applying them to the article. They may be correct, but the manner in which they are being displayed is awkward. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Content should reflect what reliable sources say. To imply certainty when reliable sources disagree, or to pick one message out of many contradictory ones, is deeply unencylopædic. However, undue weight can be a concern... it may be appropriate to put that text in a less prominent part of the article, and different wording could be helpful. bobrayner (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The article currently reflects the input of someone who is at WP:AN3 for edit warring on this issue. It is dreadful as a consequence. A general solution that has emerged in recent weeks where the varna status is disputed involves having a single sentence in the lead that says just that, with elucidation in the body. This does, of course, depend on there being reliable sources for the several opinions: if there is only one opinion per WP:RS then the issue can be noted as a direct statement in the lead, as usually happens when a caste is kshatriya (and as is usually wanted when a caste claims that status despite the alternate RS opinion of shudra, or whatever). - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Now it doesn't - the unreliably sourced version has been removed again. - Sitush (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bobrayner. I do have a "due weight" concern here. But it is not about which caste should be noted as which varna. My concern is that this whole varna status debate is an artificial construct and exists only on WP. No such debate exists among secondary sources. We should not be be creating a debate (and give it artificial importance) where no such debate exists in reality? The caste articles give the impression that there is a debate/ dispute of this sort. There is no such debate or dispute in reality. The impression which these articles give is in contradiction with reality.MW 01:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This debate/dispute is sourced from passing comments (besides having other problems) almost 100% of the time. Anything sourced from passing comments is OR. This alone shows that this whole debate/dispute is an artificial construct, does not exist in reality, and is completely OR.MW 02:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:No original research#Reliable sources

...In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, or on passing comments. Passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source. Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source...(emphasis mine)

. Almost all of the varna debate in caste articles is OR. I regard OR, misrepresentation, off topic sources, cherry picked material, passing comments, confusing material, etc. as encyclopedic poison.MW 03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it proper to harbor half baked information even when it is clearly against the core policies to do so?MW 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

MangoWong, the reason that I and others are finding you grating is that you perpetually make identical arguments such as the above, and don't actually provide any constructive debate. You have been explicitly told multiple times that if A says 1 and B says 2 and C says three, we can say "sources disagree" and that's not OR, but you keep insisting it is. Take it to DR or hold your peace, as this is simply repetitive. Further, both Sitush and I when debunking bad refs will list them, quote them, and explain why they are improper, whereas you drop by a dozen pages and say "all these refs are terrible... no I don't need to explain why, they're just bad". You go on and on about "cherry picking", "endemic bias" etc. and then refuse to actually follow through. How about you pick an article, list out the references you don't like, and we can have an actual conversation vice just hearing you make identical complaints over and over again without actually debunking a ref, providing a better ref, or DRing "terrible editors" like myself, who has apparently ruined what was a wonderful Lodhi article prior to my arrival. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to create the impression that I have been making empty complaints. I have been taking down pieces of OR lies, misrepresentations and undue material etc. etc. from Yadav, Kurmi articles. Don't deny it. I will come down to specifics here too. But I am waiting for uninvolved users to say something on the piece of policy on passing comments etc. which I have quoted here. I have an uncompromising attitude towards half baked knowledge from passing comments etc. These caste articles are having most of the material from passing comments only. There can be no compromise on policy requirements. To compromise there would be to compromise the WP goals of building a reliable knowledge bank i.e. a high quality encyclopedia. We don't want to build a poor quality encyclopedia, do we? It is important to establish the working principles before we get down to the specifics.MW 09:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The principles you refer to are the WP policies. That is a known. What is not known are your policy-based objections to specific points made in this article. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The working principles are not clear. MatthewVanitas seems to be saying that if we have a situation where A says 1, B says 2, C says 3, it is OK to say that there is a dispute about what they say. What I am saying is that doing this is not OK when all A, B, C do is to make passing comments about something. A disagreement among passing comments is not a disagreement and we need not note such a disagreement. Whatever is sourced from passing comments is OR, as I have explained through my policy based comment above.03:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) If all three comments from A, B, C are passing comments, and we say "X thing is disputed" from them, it is a second level OR. This is like doing OR-- on OR, and this too is against policy. There is no source for any "dispute" statement. This dispute exists on WP only. It is WP's creation and does not exist in reality. This may be a difficult nettle to grasp, but is not so complicated either. We are not only sourcing things from passing comments, we are also going beyond what the sources say. My main concern is whether it is proper to source material from passing comments. This is what I want the uninvolved eds to opine on. Then we will get down to the specifics. What's the hurry? Please wait for them to comment.MW 11:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) All the "disputed status" material on caste articles seems to be sourced from passing comments only. This is the root of most problems on caste articles. We need not even look at passing comments as "sources".MW 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please provide some examples. It is easier to work in a framework of examples than in a theoretical situation. Just assume for once that we're all pulling in the same direction regarding policy, since we can always refer any dispute about policy interpretation to WP:DRN etc if it remains a sticking point. If you want a meta-conversation about the merits of policy etc then the various forums available for that have been explained to you on several occasions in the past. This talk page is for discussion of this article, not some generic policy arguments. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Distribution? Bengal? Lodhi/Lodi/Lodha/Lodh?

I seem to be mostly seeing metion of the Lodhi being in Madhya Pradesh, but one or two refs have alluded to their being in Bengal as well; anyone have any fidelity on that? The problem I keep encountering is that the Afghan/Pushtun "Lodi" dynasty can also be spelled "Lodhi", so we need to ensure we don't conflate the two. I don't recall seeing anything suggesting the Bundela and Afghan Lodhis have anything in common other than similar names, but I'm seeing some debate as to whether Lodhi, Lodha, and Lodh are the same, related, or different. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Argh! Transliteration again. Would this issue be worth raising at WT:IN ? There may be subtleties in the "native" (sorry) spelling that are lost. - Sitush (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Start-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles