User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

Earth100

You may wish to comment on the section entitled Reblock on Earth100's talkpage. Regards.Jason Rees (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, I've indeffed Earth100. When you're back on-wiki, you can read the most recent discussion on Earth's talk page that led up to it. I am about to go off-wiki and won't be available until sometime late tomorrow afternoon Pacific time.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Meh...I'm going to leave a note there. It's probably all a waste of time. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism in Vanniyar page by Comparing with untouchables

Hi Qwyrxian, I have changes the historical status of Vanniyar page because the historical status should say about the history of Vanniyar not the comparison with other caste like untouchables. Comparing the two caste is not the Historical status and it lead to vandalism. Please try to answer my question. Hope my question is sensible. Please advise as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk

Your question makes no sense. We compare them to untouchables because that's what reliable sources do. That is what we always do on Wikipedia--write what reliable sources say. Please do not remove that information again unless you can show that those sources don't meet WP:RS or some other policy. If you have other sources that you want to add, and they meet WP:RS, you may do so, but don't remove what's there. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Kim Petras

I've replied on my talk page, FYI. Thanks. Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar page

Sir you didn't answer my questions if you cant justify your stand then why do you lock the page for editing . I have pasted my questions once again at the bottom of this paragraph. please answer my latest question , I feel your behaving as a racist .

I found a book named " Caste and tribes of south India" so I can summarise that contents and paste here , its reliable source.

The seven-volume work was one of several such publications resulting from the Ethnographic Survey of India project which was formally instituted by the Government of British India in 1901. The Survey was intended to record details of the manners, customs and physical features of Indian castes and tribes using in part the anthropometric methods that had first been used in India by Herbert Hope Risley — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Actually, that source is not reliable either, and for exactly the reason you explain. Yes, around the turn of the 20th century, there was a lot of interest among British and other European groups in categorizing and defining people based on their physical characteristics. In the last 100 years, though, anthropology, sociology, and history have realized that such a classification is completely ridiculous; it's never reliable, always up to individual interpretation, almost always related to blatant racism and Eurocentrism, and has nothing to do with how people actually organize themselves into social units. As such, you can't use that as a reference, either. This has been discussed on numerous pages related to Indian caste; the general consensus is that while we can sometimes refer to the theories that were created at that time, as historical theories, we should never present the claims as fact, and never give them very much prominence. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Sir then how you are allowing the following lines in the page

"In the 19th century the Vanniyar held a low position in both Lower Burma and in South India.[1][2] For example, Dharma Kumar refers to several early 19th century authors who describe the Palli in South India as being higher than untouchables but still essentially slaves,[1] while Michael Adas says that in Burma the Palli were "socially better off" than the untouchable castes but were "economically equally exploited and deprived".[2]" .

Even these lines are just claims of the theories from the books

a b Kumar, Dharma (1965). Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge Studies in Economic History. Cambridge University Press.

2.^ a b Adas, Michael. The Burma Delta : economic development and social change on an Asian rice frontier, 1852-1941. New Perspectives in SE Asian Studies. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299283542. we should never present the claims as fact, and never give them very much prominence. so could you please remove those lines which are mentioned historical status because they are just claims by the author of the book and not the fact.

And you have blocked me from editing the page could you please rollback the block on my edit .→→ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs)

I haven't blocked you specifically; the page is blocked from all new editors (less than 10 edits, less than 4 days registered). There is no way to unlock it for just one person, though you'll eventually be able to edit it. Please note that being able to edit it doesn't mean you can just go add whatever you want; you still need to follow our policies and guidelines, and, when other editors disagree, work with them to discuss the issue.

As for your question...I think your asking about the books by Kumar and Adas. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that they're just books, just one person's opinion, and not fact, and thus shouldn't be in the article. On this point, you are fundamentally misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. We base all of our articles on reliable sources. We don't ever try to decide what is "fact". Instead, we try to see what reliable sources have said about a subject, and then summarize those sources. When we do that, we have to make sure we're representing the appropriate weight of the general opinion of experts in the field, and that the sources we are using are reliable. The Kumar and Adas appear (from first glance, at least), to be strong, reliable sources: both are written by professional academics, and published by university presses. For articles about history/sociology/politics/etc., these are probably the second best possible source (the best would be a review article in an academic journal that itself summarized multiple other academic studies). Thus, I don't see any reason why these should be removed. These sources are fundamentally different from the Castes and Tribes of South India, because the British Government, and the agents who prepared that book, were 1) not academics, 2) had little or no training in the academic fields they were investigating, 3) generally did very little or no fact checking (i.e., they often asked one person about a fact, and then never tried to verify it themselves or cross-check it against other sources), and 4) most importantly, the work was likely based upon British theories at the time about race, genetics, and physical characteristics, that directly or indirectly "ranked" people based upon how they looked and placed people into social groups based on these characteristics. This last point is key, because it is a theory that is considered absolutely, undeniably wrong in modern sociology. We don't include these claims as facts, because we know, for certain, that they are wrong. A similar example would be that Wikipedia does include Aristotle's theories about the basic elements of the world, and describes them as historical theories, but our article about physics and chemistry do not include them as possible explanations for reality, because we know them to be completely wrong.

The short version of what I'm trying to say is that those 2 books are considered acceptable because they meet WP:RS, and the one you've suggested does not. Now, I could be wrong on the Kumar and Adas; if so, please explain on the article's talk page why exactly those sources don't meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and reply . But the lines by kumar and Adas are comparing the two huge communities in tamilnadu namely 'Vanniyar' and 'Dalits'. Already there is violence and rival fight is going on between these two communities . So comparison of these communities will invoke unneccassary violence between vanniyar and dalit people. so only I removed those lines. Some lines states vanniyar's as slaves which can never be accepted . because that is not the fact . They were actual land owners in north tamil nadu . I born and brought up in Tamil nadu so I know the facts to argue.

The word slave is 'derogatory word ' which should not be used . The words 'slaves' hurts the sentiments of Vanniyar people around the world. No author has the rights to play with human sentiments and feelings . Through wiki we should never spread the hatred and violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If the sources say "slave", and the sources are reliable, and their opinions are of due weight, then that is what we should say. And your other points are actually wrong: our job is to provide information supported by reliable sources. We don't spread anything. How others interpret our words is their problem. You don't make the world a better place by hiding information--you make it better by getting as much information as possible available to as many people as possible. And your life history is not a reliable source, sorry. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Qwyrxian

Why did you reverted my edits. You said: "A random site on spiritual healing is not a reliable source." Let me tell you, This is a genuine reference of website. It's this saint's website and has his contact info. It's a reference of him as being a spiritual healer.

"His followers come from all walks of life" is NOT puffery. Tons of Wikipedia articles has this kind of statements.

I know youtube is not a reliable source. I am NOT using it as a reference. That youtube channel has all of his lectures.

PLEASE discuss with me before reverting any of my edits. I am very considerate and calm person, and I will listen to you. But don't just go removing stuff from the article. Thank. Please reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faizanhb2 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

"All walks of life" is meaningless and intended to make him look great. And his website can't be a reliable source for that claim, as it falls under [{WP:SPS]]. His website can be used for basic, uncontroversial info, like his name, birth/schooling info, his activities (though only as described neutrally, without puffery). And I'll start discussing with you before reverting when your edits start meeting our most basic policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikihounding ?

Hi there Qwyrxian, do you remember this thread: [1] ? which sum up a history of wikihounding against me, including some references to warnings from more than one admin to User:The Banner. Once already this drived to a block against User:The Banner on April 15, 2012 [2] due wikihounding me.

well, as I warned at those times> instead of engaging myself in useless discussion with this user whenever he falls in the same kind of comments about me, I will just report him. So> please check this> [3] Thanks. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

LOL, we have not have any interaction for weeks or months and the first remark is immediately wikihounding? You must be kidding. The Banner talk 09:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like none of such comments. And given the past troubles I also think none is the best number for you, as far as I remmeber that was the number of such comments about me, that admins allow to you: none. I won't say anything and I will leave the decision to the admins, I don't want to involve in any such discussions. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Given how long ago it was (the original problem), I can't justify a block now...but, The Banner, yes, that comment was absolutely, completely, 100% unacceptable. You have 2 choices: file an rfc/u about CS, or stop attacking him completely. You can disagree with his edits (as long as you're not stalking him), but you should never be making personal characterizations about him. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	such a nice contributions with WIKI( from 2008 to 2013) Eshwar.omTalk tome 18:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Answers

(Sorry, due to edit box limit I can't edit above original thread)

Umm... "edit warring to keep unsourced text". Which text? neo (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that about Chanakya? I have posted bit detailed history on this Chanakya talkpage. Until 19 May religion field was blank. TRJ inserted 'Jain' religion. 2 anon IPs, 3 registered users(including me) removed it 12 times. But TRJ kept inserting it. Since very first response on talkpage I suggested to maintain status quo. But he refused. To show that there are conflicting sources about his religion I first casually searched net and gave some refs. You have seen same refs and accusing me of showing unreliable sources. But lateron I have given Government of India, Chanakya National Law University, Outlook (magazine), India Today and Chanakya's Niti-Shastra as sources. That was just to show conflicting nature of his religion. Chanakya was converted to Jainism in old age but TRJ kept claiming he was Jain all his life. I did inserted Hinduism religion in infobox in irritation at later stage. Just once. I didn't repeat it and I didn't involve in edit war to keep it. I used COI word 3 times in very initial responses. I didn't repeat it. Chanakya was Brahmin and devotee of Lord Vishnu. Jains do not worship hindu deities. In very first response I told that I can't access book sources he is citing. It looks my browser problem. If you can access those books and if it is written that Chanakya was hindu deities worshipping jain all his life, then you can include Jain religion in infobox. :Source of conflict is that TRJ do whatever he wants with articles, refuse to maintain status quo, revert my edits recklessly and then expect me to discuss over his inclusion in article. And strangely, you accuse me of edit warring to keep unsourced material. Which material? :I will comment about cats, infoboxes, templates, page moves etc lateron. neo (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I understand that discussion, TRJ inserted reliably sourced material. You argued based on unreliable sources and WP:OR. We don't need to go back to status quo if one person is fundamentally violating WP policy; of course, edit warring is bad, and if that is what TRJ did, xe should have instead taken it to a relevant noticeboard for help, but that discussion sure seems to put you in the wrong. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources like Government of India, CNLU, outlook or Niti-shastra are reliable sources. And 1+1=2, hence 2-1=1 is not OR. If one source say that a Sunni person was used to do Namaz 5 times a day but does not mention that he was Muslim and other source say that he was converted to Christianity in old age, then editor does not get right to claim that he was Christian all his life. Some editors know how to screw wiki policies. That's why WP:GAME page is there. Editors like me believe in WP:COMMONSENSE. If you force editors to strictly follow rules, they will go on tagging thousands of articles, like those on villages, for deletion or will remove every harmless unsourced contents or will go on to prove that 99% sites on net are unreliable, hence will reduce 99% articles to tatters. If other admins also use tone like you, I will strictly follow rules. Then see what happens. You would know that what I am doing is wrong but nobody will be able to find rules to stop me or block me, just like you are unable to find rules to stop TRJ. neo (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe whatever you want, but I honestly, sincerely believe that Wikipedia is hundreds of times better when people follow the rules. I believe that so called "common sense" is wrong over 80% of the time and of the balance, 10 different people will have 10 different opinions over what is common sense. Luckily, WP:V cuts through all the sorts of stupid arguments we could have, and says, "Look, I don't care what you or I think, I care what sources we know to be reliable think." As for your other points, I do believe that 99% of online sources don't meet WP:RS, or only meet RS for a very narrow range of facts. I believe that most of the articles on Wikipedia should be tagged in one way or another. Frankly, any article that's not at FA level is missing something or has something it shouldn't, and so should be tagged for improvement.

Finally, your attempt to invoke WP:IAR here fails, just like it does almost every time someone does it. You think that your edits are improving the encyclopedia, but at least one other editor disagrees. Why does your judgment trump both his and the sources? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar page

Why you have removed my changes in Vanniyar page . The lines which I have added is from the reliable source .archaeological society of India . In Which they are publishing the old Inscriptions found on the Archaeological society of india.

A.R.NO : 232 of 1916 .

If you want to verify you can contact the archaeological society of India . Which is the central government owned and one of the most reliable source . --Suryavarman01 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I found lot of lines which are not from reliable source in the page "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin" will you check the page and clean the unnecessary lines please.--Suryavarman01 (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the source isn't the ARNO, it's an ancient inscription. That makes it a WP:PRIMARY source, and unless the meaning is absolutely unambiguous (which this is not), then we can't use it as a source. Now, if you could find a secondary source which gives a specific interpretation of the meaning of the inscription, then we could use that. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes for that only I gave the web address of the particular page .

You have allowed few lines from the same source then why you are not allowing my edit from the same source .

Even my edit was from the same source . but you have removed that.

The specific interpretation of the meaning of the inscription is given in the page

url=http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_12/appendix_b.html

So please don't remove my valid edit . If you want to undo my edits please ask your question in my talk page , we will discuss about the lines , but you are not ethical , you're just undoing my edits . which is not ok .

The following lines are already existing in the vanniyar page from the same source . (url=http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_12/appendix_b.html%7Cpublisher=Archaeological Survey of India).

You have accepted the lines from this source then why you are not accepting my changes from the same source.

Moreover, the malaymans were related to kadavas through marriages.

--Suryavarman01 (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Riots in Sri Lanka

Hello, how are you? Can you add your thoughts to this discussion. It is another case of edit warring. Thank you.--Blackknight12 (talk) 02:28, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Try getting a Third Opinion, or, if you want a wider discussion, WP:RFC. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I will where they go.--Blackknight12 (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User RTPking

hi Qwyrxian,i am sorry to say this,but i have to say. User RTPking added citation on Tenali Ramakrishna page .but citation No 1 does not meet WP:RS.As per wp:pagelink, google book references with snippet views and no previews are not recommended and considered,but the citation 2 even not showing any details. The User RTPking doing WP:GAMING as like what he did in my previous edits.Also he mentioned in the edit summary like" Tenali Ramakrishna is not from Tamil Nadu".at the period of Tenali raman living time his country not only the present day Andrapradesh,including parts of tamilnadu too.though Telugu speaking part separated from tamil area only After 1953!Is it so!?pleasse click hereAndhra State.why i am saying , the reason is before the User RTPking said on his talk page like egypt and china like difference b/w TN and AP. but Tamil nadu and Andrapradesh has a same combined country before 1953.called Madras state.only one chief minister.even now they two states under india.please click hereIndia.not like china and egypt.it is clearly showing the user involving WP:GAMING.so please do the needfull.And i dont know why your not checking the citation deatails particularly from this user edits.I hope you do the needful.Thank youEshwar.om^{Talk tome} 21:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to stop you right at the beginning: you're completely wrong on Google Books. In fact, when referencing a book, there is no requirement that one even provide a Google Books link. The reference is to the book, not to the website link. Now, a person should never add a source based only on reading a Google Books snippet view, but I'm assuming that RTPKing has read the entirety of the source (or, at least, enough of it to be able to understand the context). Qwyrxian (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe there are some cases where Google Books shows different levels of content to viewers in different countries (possibly due to variations in copyright law or licensing deals &c). That has happened to me in the past, occasionally - one person just sees snippet view, another person sees a whole page. bobrayner (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Sitush/Common#GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 09:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I've added it to my Tools page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar Page

Hi Qwyrxian (talk), can you please look into this url https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vanniyar&diff=562093466&oldid=561507471 and please advise me whether this page have correct source or not. Help me how to use my IP instead of username. I have used Sourced information from books written by Alf Hiltebeite, S. P. Agrawal, J. C. Aggarwal & L. D. Barnett, G. U. Pope as per your advise but that was removed, please help on this. Thank you! Regards - Prabhu E — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 13:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Prabhubreaker, I don't think I can help you, because you seem to be operating from a completely different view of the world than myself. I am fairly certain that no one, in the history of the world, has ever gained "immunity from Death". I believe that many religions claim this, and even my own religion has similar legends...but I would never attempt to state that as a fact in an an encyclopedia article. It is possible to state that claims about the legendary stories about Vanniyar origin...but you cannot edit as if those legends are "true". Does that make sense? Because if not, then I don't really see how you can constructively contribute to Wikipedia, as this is really a very basic point.

As for editing as an IP, all you need to do is click "Log out" at the upper right hand corner of your screen. Of course, you won't be able to edit the Vanniyar article, because it is semi-protected for almost 2 more years, meaning no IP editor can edit it. In any event, why would you want to edit as an IP rather than a named account? What benefit is there? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Qwyrxian (talk), Oh okay i got it what you said for legends in vanniyar origin. But i have also updated Titles, names, and subcastes those have sourced content. Thank you for advise and for your explanation. Just want to know about IP login. when i see mudaliar caste there is so many unsourced contents there but that page content are not removed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudaliar). Anyways i don't want to spend anymore time to edit vanniyar page. Thank you! bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhubreaker (talk • contribs) 15:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Make your own

	Vanniyar page
	Thank for your work in Vanniyar page Prabhu VE 17:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss: About Honorofics in Names.

Hi, Qwyxian. I saw you moved page Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli to Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli . As a reason you wrote that " Syed is an honorofic ". Just to let you know that "Syed" is not an honorofic, it's a regular name and It's this Saint's own name. In Islamic culture it is used as a name for people who are decendents from the family of phrophet Muhammad. So, Please revert that move. Thank you.

That's not what our article Syed says. And I've regularly seen it as an honorific in other articles. Are you telling me that on his birth certificate, his passport, other official documents, it includes the name "Syed"? If so, then we can move it back. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Sir. Syed is his own personal name. A lot of people on Wikipedia have this name "Syed", such as: Syed Masood , Syed Ahmad Khan e.t.c. His full name is " Syed Noor Zaman Naqshbandi Shazli ". I would kindly request you to revert it please. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JackLuna (talk • contribs) 04:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 

Okay, I've moved it back. Qwyrxian (talk)

Thank you so much. It's the people like you who keep Wikipedia the world's best free encyclopedia.

(talk page stalker)Sayyid_(name) not to be confused with Syed-sarvajna (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's one of those odd cases like "Shri", "Haji" or "Khan" where in some cases its an honorific, but in others its part of someone's legit name. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar page

hello, Those lines which you have mentioned is not in that book , could you please add the proof for the lines which is you mentioned in the vanniyar page as quoted below in that books(Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century , The Burma Delta : economic development and social change on an Asian rice frontier,) , please upload the scanned copy or show us the proof for the below lines in the book you have mentioned in the page .

"In the 19th century the Vanniyar held a low position in both Lower Burma and in South India.[1][2] For example, Dharma Kumar refers to several early 19th century authors who describe the Palli in South India as being higher than untouchables but still essentially slaves,[1] while Michael Adas says that in Burma the Palli were "socially better off" than the untouchable castes but were "economically equally exploited and deprived".[2]'''''''Bold text'

Also Michael says about "palli" a group of Buddhist people in Burma , he is no where talking about vanniyar people , don't confuse those "palli" word with that of palli (Vanniyar community).

The word 'Palli' is an derogatory word for the community so it should be removed . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

On the Adas book, here is the exact quote (I'm reading it from a Google Books search, in which I can see only a small fragment): "The Palli of Vanniyan caste of Tamilnad, which was the only agricultural laboring caste not considered untouchable, was socially slightly better off than the Malas or Paraiyans but economically equally exploited and deprived." So, since Vanniyan is just a different way of saying "Vanniyar", it certainly seems that he's talking about them. You can try looking at the same search I did to find it, which is [4], but sometimes Google Books works differently depending on what country you're in, so you may not be able to see the same page.

For the Kumar book, I can see that in a chart on page 57 he says "Palli or Vanniyar". On page 58, he says, "The only major caste which is difficult to identify is the Tamil Palli or Vanniyan. Although the Pallis are included in all the Censuses in the agricultural labour castes they alone were not untouchables." I don't know where the "slave" idea comes from.

Note that I'm not the person who added these. All I know is that they were added, and I assume good faith that the person who originally added them accurately summarized them. When you changed specifically sourced info without giving a reason, then I have to assume you're doing so incorrectly. And the parts that I've just found above seem to indicate that I was right.

Finally, as for the "derogatory" issue, that's not relevant to Wikipedia; we are merely representing what the sources say. Of course, if you could provide a source which says that the term is considered derogatory, we could certainly include that fact in the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Qwyrxian , The lines which you stated from author(kumar) never used a word called 'slaves' . Even you said that "I don't know where the "slave" idea comes from." Then I can remove the word slave from the contents of the page right ? you will not undo my edit on that word right ?

On the Adas book, here is the exact quote (I'm reading it from a Google Books search, in which I can see only a small fragment): "The Palli of Vanniyan caste of Tamilnad, which was the only agricultural laboring caste not considered untouchable, was socially slightly better off than the Malas or Paraiyans but economically equally exploited and deprived."

The adas mentioned that they are not untouchables , then the content should be changed according to that right. Adas never mentioned these lines "In the 19th century the Vanniyar held a low position in both Lower Burma and in South India" in that book so can I remove those lines . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So shall I edit the contents in the vanniyar page as below . let me know your view so that there will not be any unnecessary undo edit work for you and me .

" The only major caste difficult to identify the roots is palli though they are recorded as agricultural labours in the Censuses . For example, Dharma Kumar refers to several early 19th century authors who describe the Palli in South India as being higher than Malas but still essentially Economically exploited during 19th century , while Michael Adas says that in Burma the Palli were "socially better off" than the untouchable castes but were "economically equally exploited and deprived". " Suryavarman01 (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please let me know which books are considered to be WP:RS . How to identify the particular book is accepted and considered ok as per WP:RS or not . Please let me know what are the publishers book you will consider as reliable source . --Suryavarman01 (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I've remove the "slave" part; of course, if someone can see more of the source and it does say that, then we should re-add it. As for the first part, no, you can't remove that, because the sources absolutely do say that. The sources state that they were basically in as low a social position as possible without being untouchable. Our words don't have to match the wording of our sources exactly. In fact, they generally shouldn't be exact copies, because copies are either plagiarism or copyright violations.

As for which books are RS, there is no simple rule. You can read more details at WP:RS...but, in fact, one of the rules is that there is no universal rule. It depends on what information you are trying to verify, in which article. For example, a book about South Indian food published by a good publisher will probably be reliable for information about South Indian dishes, ingredients, etc. But if the book also happens to mention something like "due to their long history of being low status, Group X...", we couldn't use the book as a source for that information. Similarly, a highly respected physicist would probably be reliable for most inofrmation about physics (and certainly anything in their specialty), but not for information about biology, chemistry, history, or politics.

However, there are large numbers of books that we can say are definitely not reliable sources. For example, any book which is self-published is not a reliable source. Any book which is a copy of Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Older books (like we discussed above) can be reliable, but only when we put them in the right historical context; for example, a British colonial advisor is probably reliable for giving factual information about things he can actually see, but not for information about Indian history, Indian social structures, etc., or even the causes/interpretations of the things he saw. I hope this helps; if you ever have a specific question, it's best to raise it on the article's talk page first, and then if the involved editors can't agree, take the matter to the reliable sources noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The author never said that they held a low position in 19th century . he said they are the only group of agricultural labours who are not untouchables. So the word low position can be removed from the page .--Suryavarman01 (talk) 06:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The authors said that they were economically and socially deprived. That's a low position. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

See position in tamil nadu , india is not by Economical status , it comes through the families and clan . Even who is not so rich economically will have good position in his village and he will be supreme head(Dharmakartha) for that village temple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suryavarman01 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I've not looked at the article but Kumar, along with other reliable sources, does mention slaves. The difficulty is that these sources are quoting contemporary accounts eg: Kumar says, "In 1871 and 1901 again, less than 20 per cent of the Palli were actually agricultural labourers. On the other hand, the 1871 Census Report, stating that 70 per cent of them were 'cultivators' (as opposed to labourers and so on), remarked that 'a large proportion of the Vunnies (ie: Vanniyans or Pallis) were abject slaves before the period of British administration, incapable of owning property, or of cultivating on their own account". Other sources refer to them as "bonded labourers (slaves)" etc. - Sitush (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Sri Lanka

I have replaced the deleted Black July image and discussed on the talk page. Just for your information.HudsonBreeze (talk) 07:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus

If you have source to refuting those in the article please bring them to the talk page of the article. We have basic conduct expectations from our editors. Moxy (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by The Rahul Jain

Please see this thread. You may also see this. neo (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this acceptable?

If you remember when you deleted the article for the semi-popular deathcore band Sufokate back last year, I'm here to inform that their old singer Ricky Hoover has gotten his own article. Suffokate was his only band so I don't really think he asserts importance whatsoever considering nothing he was else a part of is on this website unless of course he somehow asserts importance by the sources for the page. I don't really know, I'll leave this up to you. - 69.225.140.170 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Content in Ashok Saraf article

Hi, need your help in adding content in the article Ashok Saraf. I tried to see that but in lack of sources. How to go about it as most of the information had come in very old newspaper in the hard copy form and we could not locate it now. Coolgama (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You need to locate it. It doesn't have to be online, but you need to know the title of the article, the author, the newspaper it was published in, the date, and, if possible, the section/page number. Unless we can link up the info to a specific source, it cannot be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Duniyaduniya

I think 76.186.79.63 is a sockpuppet of the indefinitely blocked User:Duniyaduniya.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think 166.147.79.73 is also another sockpuppet of User:Duniyaduniya.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe 75.62.20.174 is also another sockpuppet although I am not as sure but base on his edits inserting the Egyptian infobox in the Egyptian people article I am guessing it's User:Duniyaduniya, who uploaded it originally.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe User:CharlieTrain might be Duniyaduniya base on his edits putting his images that he either made or prefers for no apparent reason on Template:Native Hawaiians infobox and Template:Arabs.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked again... 03:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I think User:JohnnyOrgseed might have originally been the blocked User:Recordstraight83 base on how User:JohnnyOrgseed created his account after User:Recordstraight83 was blocked and he upload a File:Aztec couple.jpg which is the same as the deleted File:AztecPeople.jpg. And they've all edited on similar pages.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that account earlier; the problem is that that account was itself blocked as a sock, and the blocking admin doesn't remember who the alleged master is. I wish I could trace this back to an original problem, but I don't know who to pin it on. It doesn't matter too much who we call the master; ultimately, if the person keeps socking, we'll keep blocking; if s/he ever wants to settle down and decide to use just one account, it doesn't matter too much what it is, so long as he declares and sticks to the one account (and, of course, stops all of the other edit warring/bad uploads). Qwyrxian (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow Up Questions About Judith Butler Page Edits...

Hi Qwyrxian, We were in touch briefly in May regarding making changes to Judith Butler's page, which at the time was semi-protected. At the time, you recommended: "post[ing] on the article's talk page (Talk:Judith Butler) about the changes you think should be implemented. Then other interested editor's can help evaluate the material and make the edits directly. If no interested editors show up, there's a way to bring the requests to the attention of others; for now, since I'm "watching" the page, I think it should be okay without that extra step. So if there are things you/Butler think can be improved, please let us know there. I'm happy to help, and to help guide you through what can at first be quite a bevy of procedures and policies. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)" In addition to myself, two other scholars very familiar with Butler's work will, in the next month or so, be looking at the current Wiki page and coming up with a number of suggestions about ways they (we) would like to improve the article. So we can best and most efficiently formulate the edits, I wanted to ask for your advice on how best to go about doing this and the form the suggestions should take -- especially now since the page no longer seems to be semi-protected, or am I wrong about that? Would it be most efficient for us to come up with a list of individual changes (with citations of course) and to suggest changes to the prose itself or even to provide some new prose -- and then to post that list to the talk page? Or would it now be most efficient for us to go in and edit the page ourselves -- and if so, what is the protocol for that? Sorry if these questions sound ignorant, but as you said, the "bevy" of procedures can be little overwhelming sometimes especially when one is considering suggesting and/or making a number of changes to an article to help improve its balance and other inaccuracies. Thanks very very much for your time and consideration and looking forward to hearing from you. All my best. bmwer2000 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. First, it does appear that the page is no longer semi-protected; such protection would only be re-added if the previous disruptive editors (people attacking Butler) were to return.

As for the best way to proceed...well, there's two different ways of thinking about this. According to our rules and policies, you and others can legitimately go in and change every single thing in the article, without asking first. We encourage people to be bold and make changes.

But there's a problem with that. In cases where the subject itself is controversial, such a drastic set of changes can be counter productive, because if you make tons of changes, and others don't like even part of it, they'll just revert everything, which can be discouraging. And there is no doubt that, even though Butler isn't exactly a household name, her work has engendered controversy among some familiar with it.

So what I recommend is this: make the changes in steps. Pick a section of the article, and work on that, improving it however you think is best. Each time you save an edit, make a small note in the edit summary. Then, once you've finished that section of work, post a note on the article's talk page explaining the changes in a little more detail. Then, wait--for a few days, maybe a week. See if anyone comes along with changes or disagreement. That way, if there is dispute about the changes, editors don't have to deal with a dozen different disputed points simultaneously. This process, of course, takes more time, but I've personally found it to usually be more successful on controversial subjects.

Please feel free to ask more questions whenever you like. I'm not on Wikipedia quite as much as before, but I'll try to respond as soon as I can. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The Banner again?...

I'm sorry to waste your time with this, but I think is the best thing to do. I will report to you any comment from User:The Banner referring exclusively to my alleged "past", "history" and "objectives" in the middle of a discussion whose topic is not me but the content of an article. As you mentioned those are just personal attacks and although you considered that his previous wikihounding is too far in the past, nevertheless in that time the behaviour which drove to blocking him[5], was precisely the behaviour that perhaps he is starting again to repeat: personal attacks in the context of content discussions, personal attacks consisting always in the same content: my alleged past and history. At any rate, I am pretty sure that the way to solve a content dispute is not referencing the record of the editors. So please take a look on this: [6]. --ClaudioSantos¿? 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Immediate complaining at an admin is also not positive. The Banner talk 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think The Banner's wording is very reasonable and a very clear attempt to raise the matter with decorum and civility. See, here's the problem: you did add tags without justification on talk or in an edit summary. For some tags, that's not needed (like "citation needed" tags), but POV and OR are quite possibly the strongest, most aggressive tags that can be used. They need justification--and that justification cannot be "I don't like the current version of the article". Furthermore, looking into the history, while I can understand that the status quote lead was not perfect, your version was, well, non-neutral is a polite way of putting it. And, of course, it's no coincidence that the POV you attempted to insert just happens to match the POV you've always been involved in promoting on Wikipedia.

So, I think that as you think about the pain that The Banner's messages give you (which I can see that they seem to do), you might want to consider the reason those messages are being sent, to you and to the WP community at large. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well Qwyrxian, I wonder if you had read the talk page, because, a non-involved editor endorsed my version as "less POV than the current version"[7], which was, despite of that, restored by The Banner, and also two other editors also agreed with my point of view, although no with my wording[8]. Actually, one editor noticed that the lede does not represent the content in the body and proposed a wording based on the sources cited in the body which actually coincides with my arguments on this[9]: it is a metter of debate, thus a metter of opinion but not a matter of legal and juridical fact as one may think with the current wording. So, sorry, I can not agree with your judgment about this situation. I am not pushing against the consensus, nor the "community" thinks my word is a POV, and certainly, all the other editors seems to be ready to change the current version restored by The Banner, and they have been ready to propose different versions taking into account my arguments and cited sources[10], and making it coherent with the current content in the body, while the two only comments from The Banner in "response" to my arguments were merely accusations against me, now endorsed by you ... so, your last comment could be understood as a bad example encouraging a disruptive behaviour, and that would be the polite way to put it. At least, the other editors, who are also part of the mentioned "community" seems also to start becoming a bit tired of the way The Banner is assuming the discussion[11]. --ClaudioSantos¿? 04:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)--

Rising Sun Flag

Hi! Sorry, but I undid your edit. You wrote "...the reason for the dislike of the flag has to do with the history, not with the current anti-Japanese sentiment", but I think you were wrong. As far as I know, South Korean has never protested against flag until recently like China did not claim SI for so long. If I remember correctly the first protest was in the late 1990s or in the 2000s. If you disagree with me, please provide RS that they protested against the flag in earlier years. Besides, I personally think the Korean protest is strange as they fought under the flag against United nations in WW2 like this one. Oda Mari (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

For me, it has to do with the implication. When I think about it, maybe we should remove both. I'm going to propose doing so on the talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK. See you on the talk page. Oda Mari (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Krizpo

This may be User:Krizpo again, because of this edit. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked for a week. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar

I want the valid reason from you for reverting my edits. Before reverting my edits again justify why you reverted my recent changes .

I read the book "Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century" 1965publisher is Cambridge University . Based on that book only I made my recent edit.

If you say this is not reliable source then I will remove all the lines from the article which is referring the book "Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century".

I have stated the following lines based on that book "Land and Caste in South India: Agricultural Labour in the Madras Presidency During the Nineteenth Century" only .

Dharma kumar refers that in 1871 and 1901 less than 20 percentage of vanniyars were only agricultural labourers and 1871 census report states that 70 percentage of vanniyars were cultivators--Suryavarman01 (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the valid reason: another editor, one whom I happen to respect a great deal, felt that your new version was worse than the current version. As such, it is now your responsibility to go Talk: Vanniyar (note: not my talk page, not his talk page, but the article's talk page, so that this can be a general discussion) and state why you believe your version is better. Please do so. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already started the discussion.--Suryavarman01 (talk) 03:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Drama board notification

[12] You have been dragged to the funhouse. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Over and done with before I got there. Ah well. I've left an explanation on Neo's talk, though I don't know if that will be well received. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

And I used to think that I caught a lot of unwarranted flak on Wikipedia. Hats off to you and those like you. The rest of us have an easier time here because you admins are gluttons for punishment. MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Vanniyar Page

How come the lines which you saying the historical status , If some user is raising the conflict on those lines , it is the status quo to initiate the discussion in the talk page , even though it is already discussed issue .

Either you initiate the discussion for this issue in the talk page or ask the person who have wrote those lines for the article to initiate the discussion in the talk page.--Suryavarman01 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Vanniyar(Vanniyar)". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 04:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion for adding in Vanniyar page.

Hi ,

I have already initiated the discussion in vanniyar talk page . for adding below lines. Myself and sitush discussed about this , and sitush was not able to answer my questions . will you add the below lines in the article. or let me know when can I add the below lines to the article . Since these lines are from reliable source hope you will accept my humble request .

"The vanniyars were mostly agriculturist for example , Dharma kumar refers that in 1871 and 1901 less than 20 percentage of vanniyars were only agricultural labourers and 1871 census report states that 70 percentage of vanniyars were cultivators(not agricultural labourers (i.e) owning their own land for cultivation). ".--Suryavarman01 (talk) 05:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush answered your questions directly and clearly. Please continue the discussion with him. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

I've initiated discussion regarding you at user talk:Bbb23. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Any news?

Any news about my case? --HistorNE (talk) 01:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Since no action was taken at the SPI, I've removed the tag. Be sure that you're not specifically going after one person's edits, which was the proximate cause for the investigation. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

2002 Gujarat violence

After reversion of my edit by you, I think I have improved wording with sources. You are requested to comment here on article's talkpage. neo (talk) 17:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

...for being a more patient and helpful contributor than I am. :-) Deb (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Ammar Nakshawani

Thank you for deleting the page. I have reverted it back because Ammar Nakshawani is an expert in the field of islamic history. He has graduated with a degree in Islamic history and he has a PhD in Islamic history. And not all of the information is from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 03:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thousands of people have degrees, including PhD's, in Islamic history. That does not make a random speech given (allegedly) by them, with no verification that it's really him (and not someone's words copied over his) a reliable source. Basically, youtube videos are 'never reliable sources. Additionally, we would never in a Wikipedia article say something like "If you know, please write". This isn't a journal, or a social networking site. We include information verified in reliable sources. Now, if Ammar Nakshawani has published books through a reliable publisher (that would probably be an academic university press, given the subject matter), then that book could be used. But not a specific speech; this is in large part because books are supposed to be checked by the publisher's editors, but a speech isn't checked by anyone other than the author. And if, as you say, not all of the info is from him, then it's unsourced, and should be removed. I'm going to have to re-remove the info for these reasons--until you can provide a reliable source, the info should not be in Wikipedia. Finally, once you get a reliable source, you will need to work on the phrasing, because much of it was non-neutral (thus violating WP:NPOV). Qwyrxian (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see that another editor has already reverted you, as they should. Please try to search out some sources that meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, "There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites". So quit it. Peace. (And sorry if I hurt you in any way shape or form). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

"That does not make a random speech given (allegedly) by them, with no verification that it's really him (and not someone's words copied over his) a reliable source." Really! Obviously if you watch the lecture you can see him giving the speech at the center. What is someone going to clone himself to look like Ammar and give a fake speech! I dont think technology is that capable of doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zabranos (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. neo (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Pran

I have replied to your point in wiki talk page of Pran. Those additions are needed to be made as the artcile does look incomplete with most of the data deleted in 12th July.Mrityudaata (talk) 06:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the news!

One of my edits is in the news. I'm right (at least per our policies) but it is amusing that a certain naivety in the Indian press causes them to be ignorant of the fact that we are widely mirrored and indeed even plagiarised by the press themselves. I rather think that the Britannica has also relied on us - yet again. - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

For me, the article cuts off at "Take a look: "...right before the place where I assume they'll discuss the WP controversy. What does it say? Or am I just missing the "next page" button? Qwyrxian (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Again

Here's Krizpo again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. It could be that that's just a run-of-the-mill vandal, making "sneaky" numbers changes, or it could be Krizpo, but either way, there's no need for it to be editing. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

What's the point?

Gone in an instant, all the time, research and reading, wasted. Again back to newspapers, primary sources and opinion pieces. So much for "consensus". I am done trying to fix this, the current mess is all yours. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted back to your last good version (as you know, you can't withdraw your contributions, even in the spite of...shall we say, adversity). I've also raised an AE enforcement request against Neo. This is, I think, my first such request, so no guarantees there.

And to answer the question in the section title--the point is that we have to try. And we should never be unwilling to use all of the tools at our disposal, including AE, ANI, other means for making sure that policies are followed. If the POV-pushers are going to drag me and other editors whose work I respect to ANI (etc.), or engage in off-wiki meatpuppetry and slander, then I think I have to use the tools I have on-wiki to at least try to stem the tide. It does seem likely to me that our "side" (where I refer to those people who try to enforce policies) will eventually "lose", in that eventually the forces in favor of information manipulation will become sophisticated enough to maintain articles in their preferred state no matter what, at least we can delay that and keep at least some parts of the project in decent repair. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the forces in favor of information manipulation will become sophisticated enough to maintain articles in their preferred state no matter what, you only have to look at Narendra Modi. - Sitush (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't "trust" any article on any current or recently vacated politician, pretty much. There's just too much obvious incentive for the story to be "correct", from all sides. Qwyrxian (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. But there is incentivisation and there is whitewashing. The 2002 violence article in many respects overlaps with the Modi article. Alas, Indian politicians and their supporters appear to have latched onto the power of Wikipedia as a propaganda device in the last year or so - I think that what we are seeing now is just the start of some horrendous problems as the build-up to the 2014 elections gathers pace. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

AE went well then Got a question for you about sourcing, is this Thesis a reliable source? I have seen theses being used as sources before. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) PhD theses are ok, MA and others are not. This has cropped up at WP:RSN from time to time. I've used a PhD thesis in James Tod, which passed FA without any concerns being raised regarding it. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sitush accurately accounts the policy, and may I point out that this one is even worse: that's a "Senior Thesis"; I don't know if they have those on your side of the pond, but that's a project that some colleges have done (quite often optionally, or for receipt of a special commendation) for a Bachelor's degree. They are absolutely not fact-checked in any way, and generally don't have any sort of review process (other than receiving some sort of letter grade). A PhD thesis has, at least presumably, been extensively reviewed by an expert adviser who has (ideally) demanded extensive revision, and further reviewed by some sort of independent board. Personally, my experience with the PhD process (not directly, but through colleagues) doesn't actually give me faith that even PhD's should be considered reliable, but that's the consensus. This thing, though, despite it being from a fairly high level school, isn't worth the electron's it's written on, at least as far as being a source is concerned. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Because the author is a fourth year university undergraduate. There is no editorial team that fact-checked the claims. It's nothing more than a long term paper. Thus, it does not meet WP:RS. To be clear, I don't mean the paper is "worthless" in the sense that it doesn't add new knowledge to the universe, but I do mean that it's worthless as a source on Wikipedia. At many schools, a student could probably write nearly anything that isn't blatantly and obviously wrong and still have the paper "pass", because, again, it's a school paper, not an academic paper. In terms of my own life, I'd be inclined to at least give a student at Claremont McKenna the benefit of the doubt, given their high reputation, but I certainly wouldn't cite anyone's Senior Thesis in any of my own work for publication. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Depending on what you're trying to source, you could try and follow the reference chain to a more reliable source. A senior thesis is often an amalgamation of the literature and is not likely to be particularly revolutionary in its claims. --regentspark (comment) 21:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)