Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:49, 20 February 2012

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

	James Tod has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 12, 2011 Peer review Reviewed October 22, 2011 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

Biography: Science and Academia GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Maps GA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Maps and Cartography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MapsWikipedia:WikiProject MapsTemplate:WikiProject MapsMaps GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Rajasthan GA‑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 GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Rajasthan (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Archive 1 - June 2008 – September 2011

Sadasivan

Given the concerns raised about Sadasivan on Talk:Yadav (or was that Talk:Jat people? I can't keep track), is it possible that we want to consider removing that line? The concern raised by Gyanvigan1 was that Sadasivan contradicts himself and makes a lot of assertions without evidence, thus calling into question his reliability. Now, that may have been just one book, but I just figured I'd raise the issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that I have enquired about the point raised at Talk:Jat people and, yes, the guy certainly attracts some heat here at WP from certain contributors to caste articles. It is often inappropriate criticism, as often happens in that particular sphere, but I have my own concerns also. This is the only article in which I have ever cited him. My major concern is that in fact he seems not to have been primarily a historian/anthropologist etc, although he was indubitably a respected academic in his sphere. I was not aware of this at the time of insertion, which is a shocking mistake on my part. I just spotted the reference to him about ten minutes ago when I linked to the article about him ... and it grated, based on what I have learned since adding the thing some weeks ago.

I am not yet convinced that he does self-contradict (ongoing discussion/research etc), and I am not entirely certain that his is necessarily an unreliable opinion etc. However, I do think that he should be ditched from this article. There are plenty of other sources for the section and therefore no need to include what is clearly quite a contentious author, whether or not he is actually WP:FRINGE, unreliable or whatever. In fact, I'll just do it. I really cannot see that anyone would object to the removal. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

entites vs entities

In the Peabody's quote: "utterly subversive to the stated goal of preserving them as viable entites" the word "entites" is clearly a typo, but I don't own an original copy of the Peabody's publications, so I can not verify if the typo is a textual error from Peabody or from the author of the Wiki article. If it's just a typo from Norbert Peabody's writes, please add the Sic template to the misspelled word, otherwise simply correct it to "entities". — Toffanin (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC).

Checked - it was my typo, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

biased section and archiving

Why have most of the sections on the talk page been archived. The talk page wasn't too long even if those sections had been allowed to remain on the current page. Several people have taken exception to the heavy criticism of Tod in the criticism section. All the people who objected to this article have been blocked/banned/driven away. Has the talk page been archived to hide the mischief going on in this article? It is very obvious Tod is being criticized to prevent him being used as an RS on Misplaced Pages. NPOV has been subverted in the criticism section. The criticism is being put forward by doing OR and synthesis in violation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Several of the sources which are being used to criticize Tod actually do not say anything about Tod at all. What they say is being taken out of context to criticize Tod. Moreover, these sources are being used to create arguments which no RS has ever made. This is in complete violation of V and NOR. The criticism section is clearly biased and needs much work.117.198.53.230 (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The archiving is normal. Once an article passes GA, or FA, the talk page is often archived. I did so last October when I listed the article as GA level. What's the problem? The archives are perfectly visible, and people can always revisit an old topic if they wish, by starting a new thread about it.

Regarding Tod, the sources simply say what they say, and the best ones are being used in a fair manner. They say Tod's historical work was full of errors. That's the mainstream scholarly viewpoint of Tod's work! If this situation leaves you unhappy, I'm sorry. I feel that the article is exceedingly thorough and neutral. Binksternet (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The issues in those threads have not been settled. I don't think it is proper to archive threads unless the issues have been settled; or the talk pages becomes too long. I think those threads should be restored so that more people may be able to see the issues, and discuss them. Archiving them makes them less visible.

About neutrality of the criticism section, you say that Tod's historical work is full of errors, that it is the mainstream scholarly viewpoint of Tod's work, and that the article is thorough and neutral. Have you formed these opinions by reading the contents of the present article only? The foremost scholarly authority on Tod is Freitag. Frietag has written Tod's biography and various other articles on Tod. Freitag thinks that Tod's historical work is fine, and it is only his treatment of legendary/mythological issues that is problematic. Moreover, Freitag has also criticized the critics of Tod. He says that many of Tod's critics are biased/racist etc. These points are missing from the article and it does not have a single good thing to say about Tod. The criticism section is only criticizing, criticizing and criticizing Tod. There is no any attempt at balancing the criticism on Tod. Until and unless the criticism on Tod is balanced, the neutrality and thoroughness of this article is laughable. You have also ignored the objection regarding use of sources which do not mention Tod.117.198.51.56 (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No-one who has commented on this talk page since my involvement with the article has been banned from Misplaced Pages, nor can anyone be driven away from the project. Some probably have been temporarily blocked at various times but in the case of India-related articles that is usually for edit warring. personal attacks or sockpuppeting. To the best of my recollection, no-one has been blocked for their comments etc here, nor for their contributions to the article. On the other hand, if they have then that is entirely their own fault. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have just checked the archives for people who have raised objections in the past. There have been some blocks, although mostly for attacks on my user talk page rather than here. All of the activity occurred during a brief period around the end of August 2011 when there was a known off-wiki campaign running:

• User:Raosaab7 - neither banned or blocked
• User:MangoWong - has had three blocks for attacks/harassment, but not in relation to this article
• User:122.161.105.221 and User:122.162.205.86 - appears to be the same person, neither banned nor blocked
• User:NISHUKUMAR - blocked once, 24 hours for WP:3RR here
• User:115.242.110.62 - blocked once, 48 hours for harassment relating to this article
• User:115.241.247.223 - blocked once, 60 hours for harassment relating to this article

Hope that this clarifies. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have read all three of Freitag's principal works on Tod. Please indicate where he says that Tod's work is "fine" etc. If you know of any other writings by Freitag regarding this then I would be grateful to have info about them. It might also help if you sign in - I am pretty sure that you are a registered user & am reasonably sure which user that is. - Sitush (talk) 07:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The IP comes from Guwahati in the state of Assam. I can imagine several reasons why the person behind the IP would like to use Tod as a reliable source, to put people of a certain clan in a better light, or to put others in a lesser light. This cannot be considered. Tod's work in this regard was flawed. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This may become a valid consideration only if you find me trying to use Tod anywhere. Do you know that Sitush has opposed using Tod as a source on various articles, and only started stuffing up this article with criticism after he found Tod being used in ways that he disagrees with? Why don't you use your imagination to understand that this article is being stuffed with criticism+criticism+criticism only to prevent Tod being used as a source? In fact, on a number of occasions, Sitush has used the contents of this article to argue that Tod is not a reliable source. Did you know that? You should be giving a disapproving look to Sitush, instead of me.117.198.49.17 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then Sitush has won the encounter by turning to the most reliable and scholarly sources to back up the position. You could have played the same line with satisfaction if scholars could have been found to say that Tod was totally correct in his racial analysis. Unfortunately, your position was not supported by top sources. Or am I wrong? Prove me wrong. Binksternet (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Except that Tod doesn't meet WP:RS for most things (there are some narrow exceptions). That's true no matter what this article says. Tod made a lot of claims for which he had no reliable evidence, and Tod didn't have the expertise (as a historian) to know how to ferret out myth from history from local bragging. This isn't really so unbelievable--its no different than that we don't use Aristotle as a reliable source on science; we can say, in some cases, what Aristotle thought, if we're talking about the opinions of science at the time. So, for example, in an article talking about British attitudes towards India 19th century, then Tod might well be a reliable source. When trying to make actual claims about Indian history or caste relations, Tod is very much not the right person to turn to. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that "stuffing up this article with criticism" misrepresents what has gone on. This is how the article looked immediately prior to my involvement. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent removals etc

Ror Is King has removed content that is sourced to Jason Freitag and has also attempted to introduce material that is more appropriate in the Macaulay article, as it merely causes this one to lose focus. The point of mentioning Macaulay here is that (a) Freitag does and (b) whilst Macaulay is rarely read nowadays, he was highly influential in his day and his comment demonstrates a long trend of such remarks relating to the quality of Indian historical writings that stretches from before the 1830s right through to the modern era. and that was not appreciated by Tod. Was Macaulay a bigot? Probably, by our standards of today, but his views were contemporaneous with Tod and have their place in this article because of that.

Furthermore, Ror Is King has used an inappropriate citation style and added unsourced material, neither of which are acceptable. Please, if you are going to add citations then you should adopt the style that already exists or else seek consensus for change. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please be specific in what was attributed to Freitag that I deleted? I deleted this , the anonymous author, and not Frietag.

Furthermore you are deleting my point that Macaulay was biased against Indians in general including Indian historians and his contemporaries recognized this in 19th century see here and modern Indologists like David Kopf, professor of south asian history at University of Minnesota say this : .

How can your using of Macaulay as a source be deemed correct and my pointing out the problems with Macaulay be deemed incorrect?

Furthermore, Muhnot Nainsi was a 17th century Indian Historian and he is cited by many scholars. Many modern western scholars/historians have written their complete books based on Nainsi's works e.g. . There are three dozen articles on jstor which cite Nainsi. How can anyone's grossly generalized thesis that Indian vernacaular historians were unreliable be accepted? How can this be the lynchpin of your argument that Tod is UNIVERSALLY wrong? Ror Is King (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Freitag - my apologies. You adjusted the opening of the paragraph because of deleting the prior paragraph. Nainsi is linked and the article does not say that all vernacular Indian historians were unreliable. The anonymous author that you removed is from the introduction to Tod's first edition work: it is permissible. The others are a range of opinion: it is what they think and they are reliable for their own opinions. You will note that the article also covers how Tod was appreciated by officers of the Raj and how he is still appreciated in some places today. It is balanced. - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It is not balanced. You are using sources selectively to push your POV. That is not how[REDACTED] works. Ror Is King (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Revert of recent additions, pending source detail

I have reverted the insertion of the following two statements:

According to historians Richard Saran and Norman P. Ziegler: "Tod was among the first British army officers of the early nineteenth century to gain an in-depth view of Rajputs and Rajasthani society. His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms bespeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents."

Historians also assert that Tod's Annals is "still widely regarded as the fullest and most significant history of the region ever published". Tillotson, commenting on the scholars who in the wake of orientalism debate are "lazily dismissive of Tod's work as unsubstantiated and tied exclusively to the exigencies of British interests" says:"Such views tend to ignore Tod's close dependence on the local manuscripts that he collected, as well as the clearly presented arguments of the book itself; indeed these views sometimes reveal a rather slight acquaintance with the object of criticism."

Yes, I am aware of WP:AGF but I read through both of the cited sources last year and came out with a somewhat different perspective. I am not saying that the contributor is incorrect but right now I can only see them in snippet view and in both cases a search on the relevant text strings returns no result at all. This is perhaps a function of how snippet view works, but it is unusual in my experience because such phrases are commonly returned. I did ask the contributor - Ror Is King - if they could help out and then if they would self-revert but I am getting nowhere with that approach.

I have thus asked for a copy of the relevant pages of Saran/Ziegler at WP:RX and will do the same for Tillotson, since I am incapable of getting to a suitably equipped library at present. If anyone else can provide copies that give some context etc (say, a couple of pages either side of the quotes) then it would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to WP:RX request. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

O-kaaaaay. Here's what Saran & Ziegler actually say:

The edited translations that comprise Volume I of this publication, and the Marriage and Family Lists and Biographical Notes that make up Volume II have one primary purpose: to provide a basis for better understanding Rajputs and the kingdoms of Rajasthan during the pre-modern period. Until recently, one major English language source has dominated this field: James Tod's Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. Tod was among the first British army officers of the early nineteenth century to gain an in-depth view of Rajputs and Rajasthani society. His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms bespeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents. Yet Tod himself was unaware of the sources used for the translations, the marriage lists, and the biographical notes which comprise these volumes. For his Annals of Marwar, Tod relied primarily upon two poetic works from the period of Maharaja Abhaysinghji of Jodhpur (1724-49): Suraj Prakas by Caran Kaviya Karnidanji, and Rajrupak by Ratnu Caran Kaviya Virbhan, supplemented with material from Rathor genealogies (vamsavalis) and from local informants. These works were greatly inadequate, even in Tod's own estimation, for the periods prior to the reign of Maharaja Ajitsinghji (1707-24).

(The Annals of Marwar to which they refer are contained within the larger Annals book.) Aside from their comment that Tod knew his sources to be inadequate, which is neither sourced to any statement by Tod nor made by any of the other sources that I have read, this basically agrees with what our article already says. Or, at least, that is my opinion. I am open to being swayed. The quote is the opening paragraph of the introduction to Vol I of their book, and is the only significant mention of Tod in the work (he is name-checked about five or six times, IIRC). - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, but are you bloody well kidding me? Ror is King, seeing this full quote strongly indicates bad or poor quality behavior on your part. Either you did not understand the source, which I doubt, or you very deliberately and intentionally ignored the latter half which clearly says that Saran and Ziegler, just like everyone else, think that while Tod used to be highly regarded, his methodology/sources clearly indicates his conclusions are not reliable in a modern, historical sense. Taking quotations out of context to push a POV is extremely harmful to this project. Please do not repeat this error again; please also expect that I, for one, will expect that any additions you want to make to articles will be accompanied by full context for all sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Saran & Ziegler (2001), p. 1
2. Tillotson (2008), p. 9
3. Tillotson (2008), p. 13
4. Tillotson (2008), p. 14

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• History good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Maps articles
• Low-importance Maps articles
• GA-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• GA-Class India articles of Low-importance
• GA-Class Rajasthan articles
• Low-importance Rajasthan articles
• GA-Class Rajasthan articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Rajasthan articles
• WikiProject India articles