Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ratnahastin (talk | contribs) at 01:59, 24 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)

Thank you for your detailed reply and your efforts to maintain high standards on Misplaced Pages. I value the points you’ve raised and would like to address them systematically, while also proposing constructive ways to move forward.

1. Reliability of Historical Sources (Raj-era Materials)

The guideline WP:AGEMATTERS advises caution with older sources but does not outright prohibit their use. Historical sources, such as British-era ethnographic records, are still widely referenced in modern academic works for their detailed documentation of caste structures. These records provide unique insights into historical social dynamics that contemporary works often build upon.

For instance, the Imperial Gazetteer of India and other Raj-era documents have been cited in numerous academic papers and books. While I acknowledge that biases exist in some of these materials, outright dismissal of all such sources skews neutrality, particularly for topics that require historical context. As per WP:HISTRS, historical sources remain valuable when no equally comprehensive modern source exists.

These sources were often verified by higher authorities at the time of their publication, including British officials and researchers who had access to extensive field data and local insights. Many of these works were subject to review and correction by government-appointed officers, ensuring a degree of verification by superior authorities, which enhances their credibility.

2. K.S. Singh's work (Anthropological Survey of India)

The People of India project by K.S. Singh, conducted under the Anthropological Survey of India (ASI), is a government-commissioned study that has been widely used in academic and sociological research. While not without criticism, it remains a significant ethnographic resource.

The project’s credibility is bolstered by its commission and oversight by the Government of India, ensuring that the study was conducted with scientific rigor and institutional backing. Many of the ASI's reports, including those by K.S. Singh, have undergone review by experts and have been cited in Indian courts, legal proceedings, and academic publications. This verification process by governmental and scholarly authorities adds weight to their use as reliable sources.

To address concerns about reliability, flagged claims from this work can be supplemented with additional sources rather than removed outright.

The project's credibility is bolstered by its citation in legal and governmental contexts. Dismissing the work entirely due to select criticisms would overlook its widespread use and relevance. Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, scholarly sources like this, even if imperfect, are critical for nuanced discussions on sociological topics.

To address concerns about reliability, flagged claims from this work can be supplemented with additional sources rather than removed outright.

3. Living People and WP:BLPCAT

I acknowledge your concerns about WP:BLPCAT and WP:CASTEID. Including living individuals like Navniet Sekera and Ajeet Singh Yadav was an oversight, and I apologize for this mistake. I agree these names should be removed to avoid policy violations.

However, Mulayam Singh Yadav is a historical figure, and multiple credible sources explicitly link him to the Kamaria Ahir caste. His inclusion is relevant for providing historical and social context. If necessary, I am open to focusing on deceased individuals and avoiding references to living descendants like Akhilesh Yadav and Shivpal Yadav unless they have explicitly self-identified.

4. Verifiability and Snippet Views

I understand concerns about snippet views on Google Books, but they remain an important tool for accessing older academic works. Many cited books are well-recognized and respected in their fields, and the snippet views provide enough context for verification.

While I recognize that full-text access is preferable, dismissing a source solely because it is accessed through a snippet view is not practical, especially for historical materials. As per WP:V, verifiability does not require that editors have physical access to the source, only that it can be cited accurately and reasonably verified.

To address this, I am willing to:

• Add page numbers where possible.
• Provide more specific excerpts or summaries from the sources to strengthen verifiability.

5. Improving the Article Collaboratively

I agree with your suggestion that the article should be improved rather than reverted to an earlier state. Collaborative solutions are key. Here’s what I propose:

• Remove names of living individuals unless they have explicitly self-identified, to address WP:BLPCAT concerns.
• Retain historical context and well-sourced content, flagging or supplementing contentious claims for further review.
• Add page numbers and excerpts to cited sources to enhance verifiability.
• Balance historical and contemporary sources to ensure neutrality and depth.

These steps would ensure the article aligns with Misplaced Pages’s policies while maintaining its historical and sociological significance.

Final Thoughts

I respect the effort you’ve put into this discussion, and I’m committed to improving the article collaboratively. Let’s work together to refine the content and address any outstanding concerns constructively. I believe this approach aligns with Misplaced Pages’s goals of verifiability, neutrality, and collaboration.

Best regards,

Nlkyair012 18:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop generating messages using an LLM? you are only repeating yourself again and again instead of paying heed to what I wrote. You should also stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING and wasting community 's time by bringing up this on multiple noticeboards. I'm an experienced editor in the caste area for last three years and Raj era sources are absolutely unusable no matter how many times the LLM model tells you that they "neutral and academic" neither of which they are, in fact their authors were believers of scientific racism and no serious academic uses them nowadays, we only use reliable WP: TERTIARY WP:SCHOLARLY sources to summarise aspects of a caste group. If you continue to post AI generated text, then I will have to report you to administrators. Also pinging @Fylindfotberserk and Ekdalian:, can you please explain what I'm trying to for a while now to this user? - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions