Talk:James Tod

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia, 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 [1], 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 [2] and modern Indologists like David Kopf, professor of south asian history at University of Minnesota say this : [3].

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. [4]. 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 wikipedia 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)

Saran & Ziegler

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)

I do not understand your point at all. What about Saran and Ziegler's quote makes you think that they are criticising Tod? All they are saying is that Tod has not named in his book what vernacular sources he used. Though Saran and Ziegler (in their Phd Thesis and various other authors for example Bishweshwar_Nath_Reu in his history of Marwar quotes EXTENSIVELY from these two sources which Tod used) ended up using the same sources as Tod did. He just did not name Suraj Prakash and Raj Rupak in his Annals. Both Suraj Prakash and Raj Rupak are bonafide vernacular histories and if you read more in Ziegler and Saran they quote extensively from these sources and so does Reu. Please tell again what is Tod's fault here? Ror Is King (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tillotson

I've now re-read the introduction to Tillotson, from which the other two quotes above were taken. Again, they have been taken out of context &, ultimately, Tillotson at best sits on the fence. Aside from what the quotes themselves acknowledge - ie: "Tod's close dependence on the local manuscripts" - they ignore comments such as:

In its time and since - up to the present - the value and accuracy of the Annals have been challenged by other scholarly historians. Even the editor of the 1920 edition, William Crooke (who must have thought it worth reprinting) scores a number of triumphant hits in his footnotes. The eminent mid-20th-century Indian historian Sir Jadunath Sarkar, normally so bland and mild, is acerbic in his criticisms of Tod in his history of Jaipur, commissioned in the 1940s, frequently dismissing Tod's account of an event as "a cock-and-bull story", a "classic howler", or an "opium-eater's tale". He even has a section entitled "Tod's Gossipy Annals Proved to be Incorrect".

Tillotson, a former Director of the Royal Asiatic Society, admires Tod's work ethic and appreciates that Tod used materials available to him in a way that enabled him to make the ideological points which our article discusses but, ultimately, he does not endorse Tod at all and makes a good deal of how Tod "went native" (my choice of phrase). He ends his introduction saying that "Tod's legacy today is primarily a matter for historians".

Tillotson's book includes a contribution from Freitag, whose biography and other studies of Tod form a part of this article and whose opinions of the man seem never to falter. There is detail in Tillotson that could be added to the article but it would not change the perspective and I feel that we are approaching the limit in terms of length. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To clarify the original quote from Tillotson that Ror Is King provided above. If someone can be bothered to delve through the article history then there was at one point a sentence describing Tod being "of his time". That sentence was removed, IIRC because it the phrase is a bit vague. However, it is effectively what Tillotson is saying: those who criticise Tod today sometimes do so without full acknowledgement of the historiographic etc methods of Tod's own time. Against this, we must offset my own quotation from Tillotson above, which indicates that criticism actually began in Tod's own time - something which the article does touch upon, although regrettably now without the Macaulay quotation that set some context. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This is POV pushing in the extreme by Sitush. 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." How can Sitush be allowed to delete any positive statements that various authors, who are all far more qualified than Sitush, are making about James Tod? Ror Is King (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:OWN

This article has reverted to an WP:OWN and POV pushing by Sitush and his friends. Each of the authors, James Freitag, Giles Tillotson, Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler praise Tod but Sitush only wants to put negative comments and no positive citations from from these authors about Tod. If this is not POV pushing, supported by his admin friends, what is? Ror Is King (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Given that 9 editors besides Sitush commented in the Featured Article review (only some of whom are admins, and number of whom do not regularly work on India-related articles), and no one expressed any concerns with this problem besides you, and that people like myself also commented above, it appears that your position is a very significant minority here. As such, the burden is now on you to show that the previous decisions were wrong, and to establish a new consensus for the changes you want. Until such time as you can show that consensus, please do not revert to your preferred version of the article. If you believe that the response here is not sufficiently addressing your concerns, you may pursue dispute resolution. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)ex

This is extremely unfortunate that you choose not to respond to the question I asked above. You have no idea about the sources which I brought out. Ror Is King (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Further more none of the 9 editors knew about what Giles Tillotson and Richard Saran wrote about Tod in their book. How can you allow Sitush to push his POV. What problems do you have with Tillotson quote given above? Ror Is King (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a friend of Sitush and I was about to revert your ridiculous edit, except that Qwyrxian beat me to it. Alarbus (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't you see that just two editors Sitush and Qwy (and couple of other friends of theirs) colluded and only put negative comments about Tod? Have you read Giles Tillotson's quote given above? What is it about the quote that you don't understand? Ror Is King (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you accept that you misrepresented Saran/Ziegler in the quote that you provided ca. a week ago & which I provide in full above? That you cannot take a subphrase from a sentence and use it to support anything in particular? And that I did look into the concerns that you raised both here, on your talk page, on the FAC nomination page and, IIRC, in a couple of other places also? - Sitush (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Pray tell what did I mis represent from Ziegler and Saran? Please be specific. Ror Is King (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

See this. which is the point that you made at several different venues. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I should also add that you are blatantly mis representing Frietag. From Freitag's PhD thesis you have only culled negative points and from the same thesis when I point out positive statements you and your friends delete them. How is this not POV pushing? Ror Is King (talk) 09:51, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read Freitag's thesis? I found it to be somewhat tricky to get hold of. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Were you able to get hold of this? Perhaps WP:RX could help? All libraries worldcat lists as holding copies are at U.S. universities, nothing in the U.K. JanetteDoe (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have it here, via RX. It took a fair while for it to be located at Colombia but I have had the thing for months now. - Sitush (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Per Sitush's above comment that he reverted based on his interpretation it is wholly wrong on his part. Further keepign the other opinion with DUE CAVEAT is more than a fair an djust accomodation for both views. Though i would not write "some" views but specifiy according to ..."

Further FA is not a god of all tool and consensus can change. THat said, i agree no need to reinsert till its sorted. Tagg is added o generate more user discussion.is not gospel factLihaas (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What is this? You come into a discussion that is four days old and you make an insensible accusation, incomprehensible and unintelligible? And you add a POV tag to the article? I am reverting the POV tag until you can clearly state a serious concern. Binksternet (talk) 06:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Extreme POV pushing and threats and edit warring by admins

Example 1

I would like to point out that my complaint is not a content dispute. Sitush and friends are selectively quoting negative comments about Tod and obliterating the positive ones. For example in the "Criticism" section, which subsequently got renamed to "Reception" this is how Jason Freitag is quoted:

From: [5]

• These factors, says Freitag, contribute to why the Annals were "manifestly biased".

Now from the same source, Freitag, if I want to insert the following quotes:

• Tod's Annals sits at the foundation of modern scholarship on South Asia.(Reference: Freitag (2001), p. 7)
• Freitag further commends Tod in his PhD Thesis: "Today, historical work in Rajasthan continues to operate within the framework Tod defined two centuries ago."(Reference Freitag (2001), p. 6.)

I am not allowed to do so from the same PhD thesis that Sitush had quoted from because his admin friends are helping to create a WP:OWN situation that only Sitush and his admin friends will decide that their POV will be represented in the Tod article. No one dare oppose them or they threaten you with dire consequences and then eventually ban you (as happened to me a couple of days ago). Ror Is King (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Those quotes are from the abstract to his thesis, not the thesis proper. We do not usually use abstracts. This is the same methodological error that you made when you previously quoted selectively from the introduction to Saran & Ziegler. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this your whim or is there a wiki policy on this? Please point out the wikilink for this. Ror Is King (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Example 2

Continuing the example of POV pushing, edit warring and threats by Sitush and his admin friends.

I added the following quote from Dr. Richard Saran and Dr. Norman Ziegler who are both PhD's from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and University of Chicago respectively. They both spent 20+ years researching the vernacular documents in Rajasthan, some of which Tod also used, and wrote a book [6] published by Michigan University Press: The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, ISBN:978-0-89148-085-3. In this book they write:

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 besepeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents. (Reference: Page 1 of their book given above)

I am not able to add this quote because Sitush and his admin friends WP:OWN the page and want to push their own POV. This groups threatens, edit wars and bans people who disagree with them.

More FYI. Topic of Saran's thesis defended in 1978 was "Conquest and Colonization: Rajputs and Vasis in middle period Marwar" and Ziegler's thesis defended in 1973 was: "Action Power and Service in Rajasthani Culture: A social history of rajputs in middle period Rajasthan". I inserted this material on James Tod page here [7] and it was removed by Sitush and his admin friends. Ror Is King (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason for rejecting the quote has already, and recently, been explained on this talk page. I see no point in returning to old ground. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please point a specific link on wikipedia since you have already discussed it. It should be easy to do this for you. I allege that you and your friends are grossly mis-representing what Saran and Ziegler wrote. Ror Is King (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Erm, here, for starters. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

This is preposterous interpretaiton of Ziegler and Saran "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." How on earth can you interpret this? This is bad english. Ror Is King (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Saran and Ziegler state that Tod was one of the first to look at the Rajputs. They further state he gathered a lot of documents. And, most importantly, they state that Tod didn't know about the accuracy of the sources, that the sources were inadequate, and that they were, to a large degree, poetry and the word of local informants. That's what the article already says. You cannot just lift out that one sentence out of the middle of that paragraph and make it sound like Z&S are praising Tod; rather, we have to note that they are praising him, but only for a very narrow thing (being the first British person to look at this subject, even though he didn't really do a proper job of it). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

Is there a way to arrange the images so that they are not all lined up against the right side of the article, most of the way down? A bit of variation would be nice here. --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Be bold and do it yourself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

My guess is that the right-justified style was selected purposely. There's no reason why a few images cannot be shifted such that they tend to alternate left and right. Personally I have no problem with the 100%-right-border layout; any reasonable layout would be fine and this is one of them. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - I am just getting up to speed again. Yes, the layout was deliberate and resulted from quick-fixing a prior gallery-style layout that broke the article flow. My own preference is to leave as it is now, primarily because things display differently on mobile devices etc and having the images all right-aligned makes it easier to read on small screens. But I am not madly fussed and if someone wants to shuffle things around and can do so without falling foul of WP:MOSIMAGE layout guidelines then I'd have no objection if there is consensus for it. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes due to main page display

• These changes made when the article was featured on the main page are irking me ever so slightly. They link to articles concerning the British Army and Marines, whereas Tod was an officer in the army of the East India Company that was, effectively, a private army. I'm not particularly au fait with how close that army resembled the British Army: are the links appropriate or not? - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, those links little sense to me. I'd link to the top level page (as other BEIC officers are) about the rank, not the UK variant. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I am pretty sure that the presidency armies' ranks were modelled on the British Army but putting rank links first lieutenant and captain (armed forces) instead would be fine. Greenshed (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
      • While we can rely only on the sources it cites, this section might help to resolve things. He was definitely in the Bengal Army but I cannot see the sources in the section and I'm not even sure that the relevant bit is sourced. - Sitush (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• This edit, changing "English" to "British" also concerns me. I know all about the nationalist agendas that surface on Wikipedia but having "British" twice in one sentence looks clumsy and, in fact, he was born in England. His father was born in Scotland but his mother, although of Scottish ancestry, was born in the USA to a family who had settled there. The couple were married in New York. I am not aware of any formal declaration of nationality by Tod himself but the "British" in "East India Company" is necessary because there was also a Dutch East India Company. Thoughts? - Sitush (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not au fait with the British/English nonsense - but the original seems more accurate, in keeping with nomenclature of the era, and reads better. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
    • We could sidle round the problem by saying "English-born" - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have just removed some unsourced nonsense.There was a discussion some time ago regarding whether or not to name the children in the infobox. That may have been at the FA stage but, regardless, if this Blunt person was born in 1841 then she could not have been the daughter of James, who died in 1835. To the best of my knowledge, the only child who has any form of notability is the first-born, who appears occasionally in contemporary sources but has nothing of sufficient merit to justify a Wikipedia article. - Sitush (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Naming the children doesn't hurt, if there is a source. Just my opinion. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

My impression of the infobox parameter for listing children is that only the notable children should appear there. As none of the children achieved notability, the infobox should not say how many children, or their names. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Naming the children does not depend on whether they are "notable" or not. If we have a reliable source then generally their names and dates or years of birth should be included as having children is, ordinarily, a significant event in anyone's life. Greenshed (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I just went to look at Template:Infobox person and my idea about children needing to be notable is not supported by the instructions. Perhaps I was remembering an older version, or an unusual case. As you were... Binksternet (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I've gone through the archives and the only discussion I can find for this article is here. My memory must be fading now I've hit the north side of 50 ;) This point is definitely resolved, thanks all. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Tillotson II

Hi, Sitush, you instantly reverted my changes without discussion and with an insufficient reason. Key assertions in the paragraph I edited were not referenced, even though I agree with you that other parts of the Tod page are referenced. But you did not give any reason for wanting to retain the non-neutral point of view. NPOV is a Wikipedia principle. We're not here to do original scholarship, or to take a particular point of view, but to reflect a neutral account of the subject. That's what my edit was for. If you don't think that NPOV was achieved, then please edit that paragraph for NPOV yourself. Best wishes, 00:38, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I am unwell at present but you should not usually make substantial changes to featured articles in the way that you did. You were reverted because you were plain wrong (cites are not needed in the lead section, your change was clear POV) and thereafter should have only discussed here, not reinstated your changes also.

I have moved your comment here, too. It should be where it now is, at the bottom of the talk page. I very nearly missed that you had commented at all because of your misplacement. - Sitush (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The Giles Tillotson source that your edit introduced is already in the Further reading section. He is an art historian, which gives him some weight but not perhaps a huge amount in this context. Your edit caused several issues, eg: we do not usually put quotations in the lead section, nor do we usually place citations there, nor do we often make "blind" quotations which lack in-text attribution ("According to Giles Tillotson, an art historian, Tod's work ..."). We also do not have something both as a cited source and as an entry in Further reading. I am not saying that Tillotson's view has no use in the article but your edits messed up a Featured Article and were possibly undue in weight. It needs thought and a read of the source, neither of which I am capable of doing at present.

Whilst I am aware of WP:OWN, yours was a poor contribution in style etc and perhaps also in actual content. This article, because of its protracted history as a magnet for Rajput POV pushers etc, certainly once had a significant number of experienced contributors watching it. I am happy to go along with whatever consensus may appear here but not so happy to see the stuff reinstated in a similar manner to that which I have just removed. - Sitush (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Please also note what was said in 2012 about Tillotson etc above. - Sitush (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• I think this should be easy to settle if we follow WP:BRD and discuss here on the talk page what content is proposed to be added. Firstly, I don't have current access to the Tillotson book, so can Wujastyk or Sitush provide the relevant quotes (and, their context) from the book for the content they wish to add to the article. Note though that the chapter on "Tod’s Annals as Archive and History" in Tillotson 's book is written by Jason Freitag, whose book and writings are already well-covered in the current article. (I came here on Sitush's request to take a look; I also changed the section title from "Sitush" to focus discussion on the content instead of the editors. Abecedare (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The citation from the Tillotson book that I gave (and Sitush immediately deleted) is from the cover blurb and can be read at this Google Books page. Wujastyk 01:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. However, a blurb, designed to market a book rather than present a nuanced summary of its contents, is not really a good source especially if used as a counterpoint to what appears to the scholarly consensus about the Annals as a work of history. That said, the Tillotson reference would be worth checking out to see if there is material in it (say, about the art collected by Tod) that can be added to the article; ditto for the publications listed below. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have access to the book and will be happy to check specifics. Limited access, because it is in the non-circulating section of the library. --regentspark (comment) 15:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Go for it! It's a short book (136 pages), and if nothing else, scans of its artwork (106 illustrations; most in public domain, I'd assume) would be useful additions here or elsewhere on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

No, illustrations in a book are normally not in the public domain. The copyright of the illustrations is owned by the person or body that took the photographs, commonly the publisher, author or library holding the original artwork. (Even if the original objects themselves, Tod's paintings, are long out of copyright.) Wujastyk 23:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

And yes, a blurb is a perfectly good source, by WP rules on source reliability. It is "material provided by a publisher. See WP:IRS It is stable and reproducible, and publishers are allowed sources of reliable information. Wujastyk 23:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

I have shifted to use Bahugana 2013 as a source for this para. This stuff is so elementary and well known that we really shouldn't be wasting our time on it. Wujastyk 23:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Wujastk, your recent edit correctly points to one aspect of analysis currently missing from the article (how Tod's ideology affected his observations and writing). However, both the placement in the lede and the phrasing is far from ideal; I will expand upon that when I can devote some more time to this article.

As for faithful scans of public-domain works being in public domain: see Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., and COM:SCAN. We may be jumping the gun discussing this though; lets wait till we actually have scans worth uploading. Abecedare (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Wujastk, you have made the same mistake yet again - undue weight, quotes in the lead, cites in the lead. I did try to explain this above but you seem unwilling to accept it. And, no, we do not use blurbs. I do not know how to explain it in any more simple manner than I have already.

The article does, by the way, already devote quite a lot of space to how Tod's ideology affected his writings etc. Perhaps this additional source has some useful points in that vein but it is not something that is entirely omitted at present. I really, really could do without this at the moment, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Sitush, you are right about the article already talking about Tod's ideology etc. Having read the mix of sources on the subject at a stretch, I had mixed up what-I-had-read-where. Will try to put that in order when I re-read the new sources, and restore/update the article accordingly; hopefully, this weekend. Abecedare (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

No problemo. I don't know if you have read the previous discussions about Tillotson - they span several threads above from ca. 2012. - Sitush (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Glanced at it but leaving the Tillotson reference to RegentsPark, since they have easier access to the complete book. I am looking at the Bahugana article and D'Souza book to see if they have anything worth adding. Abecedare (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

More sources

A few more recent sources to be considered for addition to the article:

• D'Souza, Florence (2015). Knowledge, Mediation and Empire: James Tod's Journeys Among the Rajputs. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780719090806.
  • Review:Gust, Onni (2017). "Review of Knowledge, mediation and empire: James Tod's journeys among the Rajputs". Victorian Studies. 59 (2): 340–342. doi:10.2979/victorianstudies.59.2.17.
• Talbot, Cynthia (2016). The Last Hindu Emperor: Prithviraj Cauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9781107118560.
• Rudolph, Lloyd I.; Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber (2017). Romanticism's Child: An Intellectual History of James Tod's Influence on Indian History and Historiography. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199465897.
• Bahuguna, Renu (2013). "James Tod's portrayal of the life and deeds of Rana Pratap: A critical examination". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 74: 229–239.

Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)