User Talk:Sitush

Hello, please look at [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ratnahastin this user] he is editing majority particular caste related articles and is heavily using doubtful references. He is Rajput promoting account only. Check his contributions.

Please once see this Battle of Mandan page. Not a single source looks credible. 2 out of 3 the sources are even low rated on Google books and one is by a caste historian.

References

1) Hooja, Rima (2006). A History of Rajasthan. Rupa and company.

2) Sinh, Ranbir (2001). History of Shekhawats. p. 280.

3) Meharda, B.L. Territory, Polity, and Status- A Study of Shekhawats.

Here 1st source is from some Rupa company, other 2 are from caste writers not credible historians.

This whole article is a propoganda against reality. Please User:Sitush check it.

do you know him? and are you still here? 2600:480A:4A51:9300:1A0F:89EF:99A7:4C60 (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:@2600:480A:4A51:9300:1A0F:89EF:99A7:4C60 I remember the name but nothing more. - Sitush (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Sitush, I have improved the article Bajirao I. Could you do the GA Assessment of it? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Mohammad Umar Ali Hi, I'm not around with sufficient frequency to do reviews at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Oh np could you suggest someone else name so that I may ask him for the same. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Mohammad Umar Ali I am a bit out of touch with things here because of my infrequent appearances, so I can't suggest anyone but perhaps one of the watchers of this talk page might help. Other than that, it's a case of being patient - someone will pick it up from the queue of articles waiting for review, which are listed centrally. - Sitush (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Sry to disturb you but I had to ask one more question. Does every author before 1947 falls under WP:RAJ? I found many good books (before 1947) which contained decent number of inline citations. So can I use them in the article like V.G. Dighe's book [https://archive.org/details/in.gov.ignca.4317/page/n5/mode/2up] ? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Mohammad Umar Ali I can't think of any reliable ones. For most topics, there should be more recent sources. Certainly for Maratha things, pre-1947 works tend to be pretty appalling by modern standards, with most being written from a very nationalist, glorifying and hagiographic perspective. The much revered Sarkar, for example, isn't actually much revered outside of India itself. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I agree with you most books are like that. What do you specifically think of Dighe? I think it has good number of inline citations. Though I have mostly used post 1947 books but I have used Dighe a minimal number of times. Is it okay? Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@Mohammad Umar Ali I am struggling to find an academic who mentions him nowadays, which is never a good sign. - Sitush (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}{{reply|Mohammad Umar Ali}} I second what Sitush has said above with regards to sourcing although, to be clear, 1947 is not some magical bright line. See WP:AGEMATTERS and WP:HISTRH for general principles and see the "Historiography and Bibliography" introduction (pp. 1-9) in [https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Marathas_1600_1818/iHK-BhVXOU4C?hl=en Gordon (1993)] for the specific issues with dated sources on the topic of the Marathas. For example, the Bajirao I article currently cites Sardesai's New history of the Marathas 34 times. Gordon specifically mentions that author and work as the most prominent among a group of historians in the 1930s-40s of whom he says

{{blockquote|In response to deteriorating relations between Hindus andMuslims, Shivaji and the Maratha polity took on a new significance for a new generation of historians. The importance of the Maratha polity, for this group, was as a Hindu resistance to the overbearing and oppressive Muslim government, the Mughal Empire. Shivaji, thus, was turned into an ideal Hindu ruler, struggling against the foreign Muslim rule"}}

And this POV issue is in addition to the older sources not benefiting from later discoveries and scholarship.{{pb}}

I also see [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advanced_Study_in_the_History_of_Modern/UkDi6rVbckoC?hl=en Chhabra (1971)] and (its descendant?) [https://www.google.com/books/edition/Advanced_Study_in_the_History_of_Modern/d1wUgKKzawoC?hl=en&gbpv=0 Mehta (2005)] cited very often in wikipedia articles on Indian history, which is completely out of proportion to these sources' (non)prominence in scholarly literature. I have my doubts about those sources given this and their non-academic publishers, lack of reviews etc. Perhaps a topic for more centralized discussion some day. {{pb}}

PS: Since the Bajirao I article cites a few sources numerous times, you may want to consider using shortened footnotes. Abecedare (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Abecedare Chhabra and Mehta are both very poor. - Sitush (talk) 09:50, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::@Sitush @Abecedare Thanks for your valuable insights!

::I agree with you that Mehta is not reliable and Sardesai occasionally show exaggeration but overall seems good to me. Sardesai is also few of the most detailed sources out there. I didn’t use Chhabra myself, it was in the article before my edits. I just verified its info and kept it as it was. So, no idea whether it's reliable or not. Gordon doesn't have a detailed account of Bajirao (individual wars, etc.) so I have not used it much. It tends more towards Bajirao's role in shaping the Maratha polity.

::As per your inputs, I will look for more sources (maybe you could suggest) which have detailed account of Bajirao and are more reliable compared to the sources used now. I will then substitute them with Chabra and Mehta. Though I don't think Sardesai could be substituted as no other source which I currently know has so much detail (even if more reliable) so it becomes difficult to write the body part.

::I will work on the article further after June as I have to prepare for exams now. Thanks for the suggestion Ab, I will use shortened footnotes. I also have to change url and page number by using latest editions of Sardesai-2018, etc. but I could do the respective changes only after June. Moreover, how did you find the article now than before? Is there some improvement especially Portuguese and Nader Shah part? I have re-written them from scratch and tried to maintain a neutral tone.

::Regards. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sitush. I understand it can be frustrating to have a discussion with a user who employs LLM, I also have strong feelings about it. However, you still need to stay on the right side of rules of courtesy.

In your contributions on the talkpage of Vanniyar you state: {{tq|Wikipedia isn't reliable in part because people like you contribute to it using useless so-called sources and statements, as you did above.}} It would have been much easier to state the facts without being offensive here.

Then: {{tq| Since this article concerns the community as a whole, most of whom never amounted to anything more than hand-to-mouth peasantry for many centuries, we aren't going to make a big fuss about the exception to a rule...}} Again this is a calculated insult. "Never amounted to more than..." is clearly a statement of inferiority not merely in social terms, but in terms of intrinsic value. It would again have been easy to use more neutral language when referring to what is likely a caste identity possessed by your interlocutor, and it would have been expected.

Finally: {{tq|I wasn't offensive but we're drifting off topic here. I have been working on caste-related Wikipedia articles for about 18 years and it becomes wearisome seeing people (often the same people, using different accounts) constantly try to glorify their lowly socio-economic-religious position...}} You were offensive. Your earlier contents weren't directed at me, and I was offended. Furthermore, I can safely say that either you do not have a full control of the nuances of English, which I doubt, or you were deliberately offensive. This quote itself is loaded with caste prejudice, the use of the words "glorify" and "lowly socio-economic-religious position" implicitly recognise that to be high caste is "glorious" and low caste is "lowly", and the word "their" makes it a direct attack at individuals of a low caste.

The fact you are possibly talking to a previously banned user using an AI does not give you the right to be uncourteous, especially about caste identities. Boynamedsue (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Boynamedsue Go away, please. I don't need you patronising or stalking me or whatever in some sort of tit-for-tat. There are plenty of admins who see what I say and if you feel that strongly about it then you know where to take your concerns. - Sitush (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:NPA would suggest you shouldn't use the word "stalking" or "tit for tat" here. Anyway, I was just hoping to help you improve your conduct. With luck, this will be the end of it.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@Boynamedsue I asked you to go away and I meant it. Please don't return here unless policy dictates that you must. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::And now you have thanked me for this last message! Why aggravate? - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I am going to undo. It's a reliable source. I have already discussed with you. |govind| (talk) 19:12, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:@$govindsinghbabhan$ Undo what? I'm pretty sure you won't have consensus, whatever it is. Have you been made aware of the sanctions regime that applies to articles related to India? - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::It's reliable, written by reliable scholars, reviewed independently. What else it need. |govind| (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vishnupad_Temple%2C_Gaya&diff=1289931460&oldid=1289866345&variant=en this]. You have been made aware of concerns about that source at Talk:Bhumihar and I think {{u|Ekdalian}} agreed with me. You are using it for the same purpose at the temple article, so I think you are on thin ice. - Sitush (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::It's not a vote. I have provided you everything needed. Then you guys have nothing to disagree |govind| (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::@$govindsinghbabhan$ You misunderstand consensus. An encyclopaedia which appears to be sponsored by the governments of two countries that have a reputation for rewriting history to suit them and which, in the case of the Indian side at least, is apparently written by people whose expertise lies in China relations etc, not caste, isn't going to meet WP:RS for a caste matter. This has been explained to you but still you have reverted its removal as a source.

::::I may be wrong here but as it seems to me, you are a fairly new contributor who has been notified of the sanctions regime which applies in this topic area and claims to have (remarkably quickly) read and understood a whole raft of policies and guidelines. It rings alarms bells, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do negative interest matters? It may apply on you.
It is gone through review process, what Wikipedia needs, and reputed scholars can't be falsely accused because they are already cited internationally. |govind| (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@$govindsinghbabhan$ They are not cited for caste/religion matters, as far as you have shown, nor seemingly much cited for anything else outside of India and China. In addition to this, you agreed that Bhumihar Brahmin is a very disputed nomenclature and yet have chosen to use it. And this despite me alluding to just how much POV-pushing and other disruptive behaviour has bedevilled articles which reference to that community. It isn't a great look, is it, to reinstate unilaterally a disputed source? - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It shouldn't be removed. Until contradicted by a more reliable scholar. We should always focus on more reliability, that's good. But we can't simply remove a fact that some scholars worked on.
Many facts have different levels of reliable sources, this source meets the criteria for reliability, that is written by reliable scholars, and gone through review. Everyone is allowed to change it, when he/she finds a better scholarly work which rejects the stated fact.
and That's all. |govind| (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@$govindsinghbabhan$ You really are not understanding WP:RS. I'll repeat the analogy I used on your talk page: citing a neurosurgeon for their opinion on climate change does not meet the standards implied by WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::They are related to social history which is similar as caste history. There is nothing like your exaggeration, neurosurgeon and climate change. They have good reputation too. |govind| (talk) 21:25, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Sitush is absolutely correct! {{ping|$govindsinghbabhan$}} you may soon be blocked from editing if you continue like this! Ekdalian (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::@Ekdalian You can't put pressure on me like this. If you have any point, please write down. You can't just make superstitious statements like, he is absolutely correct and I may be blocked. Thank you. |govind| (talk) 08:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Sitush has already provided a detailed explanation on the article talk page, Talk:Bhumihar! Prior to that, I had opposed your source (reliability issue) on the same talk page! What else do you want?? Even, an experienced admin like Abecedare has warned you! I really mean what I said above, {{u|$govindsinghbabhan$}}; you may soon be blocked from editing if continue with your POV-pushing! Ekdalian (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@Ekdalian Whatever you mean. I respect experienced editors, that's why I have discussed first, but I need a real explanation, and you seems to distract me instead of giving explanation. I will repeat, "4-5 accounts can't pressurize me". I have answered everything, what ensures reliability. From author's reliability to review. Thank you. |govind| (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::@$govindsinghbabhan$ Please read WP:TE, WP:RS and WP:CONSENSUS. Yes, you have discussed some stuff eventually but even after that you went on your merry way by reinstating a poor edit. You have also engaged in synthesis and some other dubious behaviour, as outlined by {{u|Abecedare}} on your talk page. Right now, you aren't coming across as a positive for Wikipedia and you are edging ever closer to at least a topic ban from all matters (including discussion) related to the Bhumihar community.

::::::::::::::This talk page is probably one of the more watched ones for people interested in caste matters, so it really isn't the stage upon which it is wise to engage in yet more tendentious argument. - Sitush (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Ekdalian @Sitush @Abecedare Last line from me: "Your blindly rejecting nature, shows your interest in the topic." I have seen you guys are just trying to distract me every way possible. Even you don't accept reliable sources, just because you don't want, it's your interest. What a level of Hippocracy!
I have argued, you guys don't have answer, you tried to distract me. I may not come to edit the topic again.
What I will do next, I will decide. But I am going from the topic now.
good news?
Good Bye! |govind| (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::@$govindsinghbabhan$ You forgot {{u|Fowler&fowler}}, who also tried to explain to you. - Sitush (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::@$govindsinghbabhan$ When people make holier-than-thou posts, they make it difficult for themselves to receive the kinds of empathy and help they need. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 12 May 2025 (UTC)