Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is regarding this edit. The reason it was removed was because it used a British Era source and sources from that time period are not considered reliable per WP:RAJ. See the explanation here. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Hi. The essay page WP:RAJ doesn't deem the British era sources completely unreliable or unusable and neither does it impose a blanket ban on their use. Jogendranath Bhattacharya's 1896 book "Hindu Castes and Sects" (the source in question) isn't even mentioned specifically and separately among the listed British era sources which are supposed to be "used with caution". Its use as a source for mentioning the supposed place of origin and other information related to Gaur Brahmins in the concerned article doesn't seem to be problematic or pseudo-historical in any way. Its removal seems very unwarranted. Besides, like so many British era sources, that book source is also heavily used in numerous wiki articles. Please explain more precisely on why that source should not be used in article Gaur Brahmins. Making a passing reference to WP:RAJ that doesn't even mention this source individually to remove it and its related content without precisely mentioning what exactly is wrong with them doesn't appear justified. - Vibhss (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need to discuss that in the talk page with User:Sitush who removed it in the first place, per WP:BRD. You seem to be interested in discussing it only after I removed it, and not before (the above comment of mine was on 13th Jan). Yes, people seem to enforce a blanket ban on British Era sources on caste/communities except census figures from that period. I beleive there are numerous consensuses against using those at WP:INB which is mentioned in WP:RAJ. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I'm not much active on this platform nowadays. I missed reading your earlier comment. There must be some specific conditions under which the British era sources are not supposed to be used. To not use them at all especially in stub articles where valuable and non-controversial content can be added using them doesn't sound justified. The essay WP:RAJ doesn't even talk about the concerned source (Jogendranath Bhattacharya book) particularly. Its emphasis is largely on the works of British/ European authors not on those of Indian authors. On another note, I want to discuss something about another article with you. Should I do it on your talk page ? Vibhss (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]