Talk:Bhatti

Reliability of source

This source is purported to support a Sindhi affiliation of Bhattis. After searching for a while, I couldn't find any information about the author. The passage at page 685 which maybe relevant for the assertion is: These Sindhis are called pukka, meaning real, and descendants of such central Asian groups as the Sakas, Kushans and Huns as well as the many Rajput and Jat tribes of eastern India, such as the Yadavs and Parwars. In Sindh descendants of Yadavs are known locally as Sammas, and those of the Parwars are called Sumras such as the Bhuttos, the Bhattis, the Lohanos and the Mohanos. This source is full of pseudo-historical claims, and also doesn't actually call Bhattis as Sindhi. Hence, I have removed it. Sutyarashi (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The whole section is about "Sindhis". Check the top left corner of the page. Also, very not nice of you to exclude the text before "These Sindhis are called pukka", which is, "Most Sindhi Muslims are descendants of people who have lived in the Sind Province for centuries." Sammas, Soomras, Bhattis, Bhuttos, Lohanos, Mohanos are all included. Now let me make three things clear. A. You are not a scholar, B. you should discuss before making major significant changes like removing a whole ethnicity because of what "you" think, C. put more effort and do not exclude texts important to the context, for any "reasons" you may have. Sir Calculus (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if the line is added, it doesn't add anything meaningful or answer the objections I raised. For starters, what's expertise of Weekes, Richard V in anthropology? Sutyarashi (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, the major change you're talking about was evidently done by you, and without any sort of discussion. WP:BURDEN lies on you to show how to source is reliable or even relevant for the article. Sutyarashi (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who removed "Punjabi" from the article. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't add anything meaningful? This is ridiculous. Are you actually serious? Literally check the Tanuja & Gommans refs. Bhattis aren't restricted to Punjabis. The source is reliable. Richard V. Weekes is the editor, not the sole author, the source is made possible because of contributions of tens of people from different Universities. And is itself published by Greenwood, reliable academic publishers.

Furthermore, the book is reviewed by Cambridge. At least put some effort before reverting. Let me clarify again, you are not a scholar. Sir Calculus (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The pseudo-historical claims (e.g Sindhis being descendants of central Asian people) negate any reliability of the source for the article under discussion. However, you can bring the reference to WP:RSN for reliability. If the editors there consider this as RS, I will not object over it. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I have established the source is reliable. It has been reviewed twice by Cambridge, once by the Journal of American Ethnological Society, and has two Eds. It meets WP:RS. Also I am not using it to support "Central Asian mix". I am using it for Bhatti. I also already advised you to check out Tanuja & Gommans refs (Bhattis aren't restricted to Punjabis).Sir Calculus (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither Tanuja nor Gommans called Bhattis as Sindhi. And where did this source get reviewed by Cambridge and others? In any case, Weekes's source about Bhattis being Sumras goes against virtually all other references. I will ask for a third opinion over its use, however. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I never said they did! I pointed out that they do not restrict them to "Punjabis". It got reviewed in Journal of Modern Asian Studies & Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, both reviews were published by Cambridge in 2008 & 2016 respectively. Also the source does not state Bhattis as Soomras! You should really recheck your replies before making such claims. Regarding WP:PERSONAL, you're the one doing it and are trying to get a reaction out of me by accusing me of "Ethno-nationalist editing" instead of replying on topic. Sir Calculus (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You can't just go away by claiming that "they got reviewed by Cambridge et al." without providing any source for it. The reference does call them Sumra (see above quotation), and your claim that I want to get a reaction out of you is not a very fine example of WP:GOOD FAITH. Sutyarashi (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I can't just "go away" with claiming. When I mentioned Cambridge, I expected an editor with over 6k edits to verify things. Put more effort, kindly. Anyways, here's the doi:10.1017/S0026749X0000737X of the review. My User page is very clear about what topic areas I'm interested in. I was disruptive before because I had no understanding of WP:RAJ, now I do.

You are not putting good effort in rechecking or reading things. The quote you are talking about is incomplete. You have excluded "and include such tribes as" for God knows what reasons. And then falsely stating the source calls Bhattis as Soomras. You even chose to exclude a text very important to the context in your very first reply. This is very problematic. This is the second recent time you have been putting less effort in understanding WP:RS, the first one was at Zutt. Now if you have issues with peer-reviewed stuff. Then frankly, it is not a me problem. Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Sir Calculus (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)