463:- Thanks! That makes a lot of sense, particularly with Gyan (being a circular reference). With the British Raj, however, the idea seems to be that the idiots of that period made shit up to justify their rule (and is therefor unreliable). Would it be fair to say that they would be acceptable for providing notability towards an idea that is false or non-standard? In terms of this article, for instance, could British Raj sources be used to make an article that said something to the paraphrased effect of "Dasti is a made up fake tribe created by the British Raj in order to justify their imperialism." The reason I ask is that if these British Raj sources are mentioning this thing, it might be useful to a student doing research to find a Knowledge (XXG) article explaining why the thing is BS.
585:, but those amateurs were also being heavily criticised by that time. It is true that modern academics do cite Raj works for certain points but that doesn't contradict our position: the Raj works are primary sources for practical purposes, and we're ok to accept mention of them where reliable modern sources have reviewed and commented upon the things. I can't comment on the relative status of the Baluchistan gazetteers vs all of the others, nor on whether Scholberg was placing any particular emphasis on how they covered communities compared to, say, how they covered the terrain or the economy or the history. Here's what
699:
Balloch article - which does its best to not contain such content). I'm concerned that there is past record of deleting content that details Baloch tribes - I don't know if this is due to prejudice against the sources that list them, or against the fact that they exist. Deleted articles include "History of the Baloch people"; "Baloch tribes"; and "List of Baloch tribes".
409:- To further my education, do you have a link to a relevant discussion on why British Raj sources are not reliable, and Gyan in particular as well? I'd like to see where consensus was formed, and why. I don't necessarily doubt you, I just want to learn something new, and my attempts at searching for this discussion have so far failed.
581:, after which the British authorities - who were indeed now the Raj rather than the East India Company - determined that the best way for a civil service of ca. 800 people to control a nation of many millions was to "know thy enemy" (so to speak). They may have taken some information from the writings of early amateurs, such as
627:
Then you obviously haven't read the information properly. For example, I see no relevant mention of hoax in this discussion (it was a side-issue) and my user pages have links to consensus discussions, as is confirmed pretty much every week (eg: a thread on
Bishonen's talk page from this last weeked).
592:
The practices and beliefs included under the general head of Folk-lore make up the daily life of the natives of our great dependency, control their feelings, and underlie many of their actions. We foreigners cannot hope to understand them rightly unless we deeply study them, and it must be remembered
481:
They didn't do it to "justify their rule" per se. It was far more complex and indeed they saw it as a way to better understand the native people of their colonies. The
Victorian era, in particular, was one of remarkable inquisitiveness. Beyond that, I think we're drifting too far away from relevant
533:
And regarding your dismissal of
British Raj sources - this seems to suggest such a sweeping dismissal is unfounded: "Early in the 19th century the British set about gathering and organizing information on the whole of India, which they eventually published in the form of district gazetteers. The
612:
No it doesn't. I see no evidence for a legitimate "consensus", (your) user pages are not consensus and do not have to stand up to OR examinations, you have not explained why you dismissed the Tapper source (which at the very least disproved the hoax allegation), and your quote seems bizarre and
698:
subdivision. However, given that even the Rind article is little more than a stub, and the Baloch article barely acceptable, I don't see enough notability for a separate article yet. Perhaps a redirect to Baloch people would be correct, based on sources (but not based on current content of the
534:
district gazetteer series for
Baluchistan (1906-08) comprises eight volumes". ... "The Baluchistan series is an extraordinary compendium of information, and ranks among the best of all the Indian gazetteers (Scholberg, p. 49) as well as other literature of the same type".
613:
contradictory in this context (you claiming unreliability, but the quote explaining why accurate information was necessary and desirable for good governance). The issue is whether this tribal group is notable enough for an article.
169:
576:
dismissal; it is consensus. I know of
Scholberg's bibliographic efforts but he is erring to link the early 19C information gathering to that which appeared in the gazetteers. The gazetteers were a response to the
341:
article in the last hour or so. For the record, again, by long-standing consensus
British Raj sources are not reliable, and nor are books published by Gyan. That pretty much covers your entire list here. -
122:
220:
482:
discussion here. And whether something is sufficiently notable to justify an article - such as one on a "false or non-standard" idea or even a fake or hoax- is entirely related to
163:
244:
558:("Dashti or Dasti is another name for the Rind (tribe), a Baloch tribe of Baluchistan"). Though there is no content in the Rind article mentioning this.
297:
another tribe mentioned several times historically. This looks like a really good source (1863, British
Library: India Office Records and Private Papers)
256:
232:
517:
310:
306:
302:
669:
I can't find any useful mentions in reliable sources. We do have articles about people who bear the name and those should probably be added to the
129:
487:
589:
wrote (and he'd said more or less the same thing several times previously because it formed a part of official policy): He wrote in 1914:
252:
228:
17:
95:
90:
704:
618:
563:
541:
524:
99:
184:
151:
82:
248:
224:
364:
270:
727:
40:
700:
614:
559:
537:
520:
145:
578:
141:
201:
708:
682:
637:
622:
607:
567:
545:
528:
507:
472:
447:
418:
389:
384:
351:
323:
285:
260:
236:
212:
64:
191:
723:
586:
281:
86:
36:
593:
that close acquaintance and a right understanding begets sympathy, and sympathy begets good government.
555:
177:
78:
70:
495:
298:
157:
491:
375:
319:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
722:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
338:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
678:
633:
603:
503:
468:
443:
414:
347:
208:
483:
535:
55:
691:
332:
315:
116:
313:<- also mentions the Nutkani (see deletion discussion below) on the same page.
674:
629:
599:
499:
464:
458:
439:
429:
410:
404:
343:
303:
Glossary of the Tribes and Castes of the Punjab and North West
Frontier Province
204:
582:
670:
551:
716:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
695:
516:
Why are you claiming this source cited earlier is "unreliable"
367:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
273:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
311:
628:
I can't help you if you do not read what is offered. -
435:
112:
108:
104:
309:(as part of an alliance fighting against the British,
176:
373:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
337:you've done a similar rationale at the AfD for the
279:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
190:
221:list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
730:). No further edits should be made to this page.
590:
245:list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions
8:
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
219:Note: This debate has been included in the
690:From what I can discover, they are a minor
242:
218:
307:Tribe and State in Iran and Afghanistan
488:Census of India prior to independence
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
598:Is this any help re: your query? -
24:
490:but we already have articles for
494:etc and would have to beware of
568:23:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
546:23:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
529:22:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
508:05:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
473:05:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
448:04:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
419:04:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
390:00:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
352:10:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
324:10:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
286:05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
261:12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
237:12:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
213:10:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
498:for the issue you suggest. -
709:16:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
683:11:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
638:19:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
623:17:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
608:03:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
434:you'll find some notes via
65:12:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
747:
299:Memo on the Dashtee tribe
719:Please do not modify it.
579:Indian rebellion of 1857
249:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
225:Krishna Chaitanya Velaga
32:Please do not modify it.
701:Tiptoethrutheminefield
615:Tiptoethrutheminefield
595:
560:Tiptoethrutheminefield
554:is also wikilinked to
538:Tiptoethrutheminefield
521:Tiptoethrutheminefield
694:tribe, a part of its
587:Richard Carnac Temple
200:Doesn't seem to meet
496:synthesising sources
301:. Also mentioned in
556:Rind (Baloch tribe)
492:Scientific racism
392:
288:
263:
239:
63:
738:
721:
462:
433:
408:
372:
370:
368:
336:
284:
278:
276:
274:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
746:
745:
741:
740:
739:
737:
736:
735:
734:
728:deletion review
717:
486:. I did it for
456:
436:this discussion
427:
402:
393:
363:
361:
330:
289:
280:
269:
267:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
744:
742:
733:
732:
712:
711:
685:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
596:
531:
511:
510:
476:
475:
451:
450:
422:
421:
371:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
277:
266:
265:
264:
240:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
743:
731:
729:
725:
720:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
697:
693:
689:
686:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
664:
639:
635:
631:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
611:
610:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
588:
584:
580:
575:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
536:
532:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
480:
479:
478:
477:
474:
470:
466:
460:
455:
454:
453:
452:
449:
445:
441:
437:
431:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
406:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
388:
387:
383:
382:
381:
378:
369:
366:
353:
349:
345:
340:
334:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
321:
317:
314:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:North America
275:
272:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
222:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
203:
202:WP:NOTABILITY
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:Dasti (tribe)
76:
75:
72:
71:Dasti (tribe)
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
718:
715:
687:
673:dab page. -
666:
591:
573:
385:
379:
376:
374:
362:
294:
292:
268:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
247:. Regards,
223:. Regards,
164:free images
58:Sandstein
724:talk page
583:James Tod
572:It isn't
37:talk page
726:or in a
365:Relisted
271:Relisted
123:View log
39:or in a
339:Nutkani
333:Fraenir
316:Fraenir
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
692:Baloch
688:Delete
675:Sitush
667:Delete
630:Sitush
600:Sitush
552:Dashti
500:Sitush
484:WP:GNG
465:Fieari
459:Sitush
440:Sitush
430:Fieari
411:Fieari
405:Sitush
386:(talk)
377:Yellow
344:Sitush
205:Boleyn
142:Google
100:delete
50:delete
671:Dasti
550:BTW,
380:Dingo
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
705:talk
696:Rind
679:talk
634:talk
619:talk
604:talk
564:talk
542:talk
525:talk
504:talk
469:talk
444:talk
438:. -
415:talk
348:talk
320:talk
295:Keep
257:mail
253:talk
233:mail
229:talk
209:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
192:TWL
121:– (
52:.
707:)
681:)
636:)
621:)
606:)
574:my
566:)
544:)
527:)
519:?
506:)
471:)
446:)
417:)
350:)
322:)
305:,
259:)
255:•
235:)
231:•
211:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
703:(
677:(
632:(
617:(
602:(
562:(
540:(
523:(
502:(
467:(
461::
457:@
442:(
432::
428:@
413:(
407::
403:@
346:(
335::
331:@
318:(
293:*
251:(
227:(
207:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.