Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ratnahastin (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 23 December 2024 (→Discussion on Source Removal and Edits: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to South Asian social groups, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Nice work

North8000 (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much, sir. I truly appreciate your kind words and feedback. As a relatively new Misplaced Pages editor, it means a lot to receive recognition from someone with over 15 years of experience. Thanks again for your encouragement!😊🙏🏻 Nlkyair012 (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on Source Removal and Edits

Hello everyone,

I’d like to open a discussion about the recent removal of content from the "Kamaria Ahir" article. The removed sections were sourced from British Raj-era documents, which the editor @Ratnahastin has deemed unreliable.

While I respect the editor’s concerns, I believe these sources have historical significance and are widely used in academic discussions. Additionally:

1. The removed content was neutral and verifiable, adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFIABILITY.

2. Policies like WP:GSCASTE and WP:ARBIPA do not categorically ban such sources.

I propose we evaluate the sources individually and decide collaboratively if they should be retained.

Looking forward to everyone’s input.

Best regards,

Nlkyair012 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

These sources are horrible and far too old (almost 150 years old) to be used anywhere let alone on Misplaced Pages (see WP:AGEMATTERS), the caste area is a contentious topic, we only use high quality academic sources here (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Raj era sources were often authored by people with zero training or expertise in historiography or ethnography. For well over a decade now, all experienced editors and admins editing caste articles have deprecated sources from the Raj era. See the relevant discussion here. You have also cited KS Singh 's work published by the ASI which is not considered a reliable source for caste articles, here is the relevant discussion. You have also introduced BLP violations into the article by adding their names here as belonging to this caste, we can only add the entries of living people or categorise them into such lists, if they have explicitly stated what their caste is as per WP:CASTEID and WP:BLPCAT. This is just a basic rundown of the problematic content that this article had. I'm also concerned by the fact that there is not a single source with page numbers here, only snippet views exist which are useless for verification. You should fix this article instead of restoring problematic content. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions