User talk:Maheyyash
Warning
The government of India is not a scholarly source. Stop edit warring at Utpala dynasty or you will be blocked. And stop calling your fellow editors "dum". Bishonen | tålk 15:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC).
- Then what about Ain-i-Akbari(a 16th century detailed document of Mughal), in this book the historian, Abu'l Fazl, clearly mention that they are belong to Chamar caste.
- Is this not a scholarly source? Maheyyash (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, that is a primary source. Wikipedia uses only reliable secondary sources, except in some special cases which this is not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 16:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC).
- Ooo thank U i didn't known about it. Maheyyash (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Sarkar, Jadunath (1949). "Ain-i-akbari Of Abul Fazl I Allami Vol. 2 Ed. 2nd"
- Is this a primary source? Maheyyash (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not exactly primary, but I think it's probably not acceptable as a source. Sources from the British Raj period (i e before 1948) including reprints are not considered reliable. Use modern academic sources for Indian subjects, especially for castes and social groups. The title you provide isn't mentioned in our article Jadunath Sarkar (look it up!), but I suspect it may be a reprint of an earlier work. Most of Sarkar's work is much earlier than 1949. To make sure, please ask on the talkpage of the article you want to use it in. The people who edit there know much more about it than I do (I'm only an admin). Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC).
- I have already added but no one is replying there.
- infact Admantine123( the one who revert my edit) is also not responding.
- Thats why u call him "dum". Maheyyash (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I call him "Dum". Maheyyash (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Everybody here is a volunteer like you, and editors don't have to edit unless and until they choose to. In fact Admantine123 has now replied to you both on Talk:Utpala dynasty and more fully on User talk:Admantine123. (Frankly, you're only making this harder by asking the same questions on several different pages.) If you continue to call names, you will be blocked. Civility is policy here. Bishonen | tålk 18:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC).
- Not exactly primary, but I think it's probably not acceptable as a source. Sources from the British Raj period (i e before 1948) including reprints are not considered reliable. Use modern academic sources for Indian subjects, especially for castes and social groups. The title you provide isn't mentioned in our article Jadunath Sarkar (look it up!), but I suspect it may be a reprint of an earlier work. Most of Sarkar's work is much earlier than 1949. To make sure, please ask on the talkpage of the article you want to use it in. The people who edit there know much more about it than I do (I'm only an admin). Bishonen | tålk 16:34, 23 June 2023 (UTC).
- No, that is a primary source. Wikipedia uses only reliable secondary sources, except in some special cases which this is not. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Bishonen | tålk 16:03, 23 June 2023 (UTC).