Talk:Taoni
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taoni article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Sourcing
[edit]For a host of reasons, which have been discussed time and again across many talk pages, the so-called ethnographies of the British Raj era are not reliable sources. This is why I removed them from this article. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- are u making us fool? do u want say people during British Raj were non sense. if we wouldn't have sources from that era, how can we think of moving forward? I mean if there is no base how can you construct the structure ? we always consult past books for history, if there's a contradiction talk about that and please don't try to fool the people. 70.39.185.17 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Editor, earlier it was mention that the subject tribe/cast is originated from Bhati Rajputs and then it is mentioned that they are (simply) Rajputs originated from the Jadaun Rajputs. Now it is showing that they are Yaduvanshi Rajputs. No problem, It is true that n number of castes/tribes claim to be Yaduvanshi. But my doubt is your source because, the contents regarding the origin were changed but still the same source is mentioned every time. So can anybody please verify that what are the actual contents of the mentioned source.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- That also illustrates why we do not use Raj sources - they were clueless. Mahensingha, we have a sock or meatfarm situation going on here. I'm going to get the thing reverted and locked-down. - Sitush (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Editor, earlier it was mention that the subject tribe/cast is originated from Bhati Rajputs and then it is mentioned that they are (simply) Rajputs originated from the Jadaun Rajputs. Now it is showing that they are Yaduvanshi Rajputs. No problem, It is true that n number of castes/tribes claim to be Yaduvanshi. But my doubt is your source because, the contents regarding the origin were changed but still the same source is mentioned every time. So can anybody please verify that what are the actual contents of the mentioned source.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 19:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- are u making us fool? do u want say people during British Raj were non sense. if we wouldn't have sources from that era, how can we think of moving forward? I mean if there is no base how can you construct the structure ? we always consult past books for history, if there's a contradiction talk about that and please don't try to fool the people. 70.39.185.17 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bhatis, jadaun and yaduvanshi is same stock. first come chandravanshi, then yaduvanshi, then jadaun, then bhati and then taoni. 70.39.185.15 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please support your view with the relevant sources. Because if all are same then why do we need this many aricles -- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bhatis, jadaun and yaduvanshi is same stock. first come chandravanshi, then yaduvanshi, then jadaun, then bhati and then taoni. 70.39.185.15 (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- If father and son are both famous people, would they be discussed in a single article or different? ancestry always drives its legitimacy from something else! A clan, a subclan another subclan and so on 70.39.185.15 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- IP, you haven't provided a single reliable source for your assertions, either in the article or on this talk page. The Raj sources were the work of amateurs, were designed for administrative purposes based on the discredited concept of scientific racism, almost always relied on the word (and bias) of Brahmin interpreters, were uncritical in their acceptance of those words and uncritical in their attempt to resolve ambiguities. They are routinely rejected on Wikipedia articles and should be rejected here. If you want some background, try reading James Tod (pre-Raj, but his successors copied him), H. H. Risley (central to Raj ideas) and User:Sitush/sandbox3 (a draft that gives you some idea of the problems that were faced in classification etc). - Sitush (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- The contents of the article are not according the sources mentioned. One of the source does not even contain the word Taoni. how can the information remain on the article. Please verify the sources.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 12:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are correct and I have removed the dodgy info. The problem is, the anon editor keeps reinstating it. - Sitush (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- The contents of the article are not according the sources mentioned. One of the source does not even contain the word Taoni. how can the information remain on the article. Please verify the sources.-- Mahensingha (Talk) "Thanx n Regards" 12:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- IP, you haven't provided a single reliable source for your assertions, either in the article or on this talk page. The Raj sources were the work of amateurs, were designed for administrative purposes based on the discredited concept of scientific racism, almost always relied on the word (and bias) of Brahmin interpreters, were uncritical in their acceptance of those words and uncritical in their attempt to resolve ambiguities. They are routinely rejected on Wikipedia articles and should be rejected here. If you want some background, try reading James Tod (pre-Raj, but his successors copied him), H. H. Risley (central to Raj ideas) and User:Sitush/sandbox3 (a draft that gives you some idea of the problems that were faced in classification etc). - Sitush (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- If father and son are both famous people, would they be discussed in a single article or different? ancestry always drives its legitimacy from something else! A clan, a subclan another subclan and so on 70.39.185.15 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Infobox
[edit]I have again reverted the addition of a crude infobox to this article. Infoboxes are not compulsory, nor do they serve much purpose in an article that is barely one sentence long. Furthermore, we use templates for infoboxes nowadays, not the crude markup that was presented. And even more, only one of the two points made in the infobox was even verifiable. Please do not reinstate it; instead, consider trying to expand the article. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2015 (UTC)