Talk:James Tod

message: In the Peabody's quote: "utterly subversive to the stated goal of preserving them as viable entites" the word "entites" is clearly a typo, but I don't own an original copy of the Peabody's publications, so I can not verify if the typo is a textual error from Peabody or from the author of the Wiki article. If it's just a typo from Norbert Peabody's writes, please add the Sic template to the misspelled word, otherwise simply correct it to "entities". — Toffanin (talk) 09:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Checked - it was my typo, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  entites vs entities 

message: I have reverted the insertion of the following two statements:
Yes, I am aware of WP:AGF but I read through both of the cited sources last year and came out with a somewhat different perspective. I am not saying that the contributor is incorrect but right now I can only see them in snippet view and in both cases a search on the relevant text strings returns no result at all. This is perhaps a function of how snippet view works, but it is unusual in my experience because such phrases are commonly returned. I did ask the contributor -  - if they could help out and then if they would self-revert but I am getting nowhere with that approach.
I have thus asked for a copy of the relevant pages of Saran/Ziegler at WP:RX and will do the same for Tillotson, since I am incapable of getting to a suitably equipped library at present. If anyone else can provide copies that give some context etc (say, a couple of pages either side of the quotes) then it would be appreciated. - Sitush (talk) 17:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Link to WP:RX request. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Pardon, but are you bloody well kidding me?  Ror is King, seeing this full quote strongly indicates bad or poor quality behavior on your part. Either you did not understand the source, which I doubt, or you very deliberately and intentionally ignored the latter half which clearly says that Saran and Ziegler, just like everyone else, think that while Tod used to be highly regarded, his methodology/sources clearly indicates his conclusions are not reliable in a modern, historical sense. Taking quotations out of context to push a POV is extremely harmful to this project.  Please do not repeat this error again; please also expect that I, for one, will expect that any additions you want to make to articles will be accompanied by full context for all sources.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand your point at all. What about Saran and Ziegler's quote makes you think that they are criticising Tod? All they are saying is that Tod has not named in his book what vernacular sources he used. Though Saran and Ziegler (in their Phd Thesis and various other authors for example Bishweshwar_Nath_Reu in his history of Marwar quotes EXTENSIVELY from these two sources which Tod used) ended up using the same sources as Tod did. He just did not name Suraj Prakash and Raj Rupak in his Annals. Both Suraj Prakash and Raj Rupak are bonafide vernacular histories and if you read more in Ziegler and Saran they quote extensively from these sources and so does Reu. Please tell again what is Tod's fault here? Ror Is King (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

text: To clarify the original quote from Tillotson that  provided above. If someone can be bothered to delve through the article history then there was at one point a sentence describing Tod being "of his time". That sentence was removed, IIRC because it the phrase is a bit vague. However, it is effectively what Tillotson is saying: those who criticise Tod today sometimes do so without full acknowledgement of the historiographic etc methods of Tod's own time. Against this, we must offset my own quotation from Tillotson above, which indicates that criticism actually began in Tod's own time - something which the article does touch upon, although regrettably now without the Macaulay quotation that set some context. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is POV pushing in the extreme by Sitush. Tillotson, commenting on the scholars who in the wake of orientalism debate are "lazily dismissive of Tod's work as unsubstantiated and tied exclusively to the exigencies of British interests"Tillotson (2008), p. 13 says:"Such views tend to ignore Tod's close dependence on the local manuscripts that he collected, as well as the clearly presented arguments of the book itself; indeed these views sometimes reveal a rather slight acquaintance with the object of criticism."Tillotson (2008), p. 14 How can Sitush be allowed to delete any positive statements that various authors, who are all far more qualified than Sitush, are making about James Tod?  Ror Is King (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert of recent additions, pending source detail 

message: O-kaaaaay. Here's what Saran & Ziegler actually say:  (The Annals of Marwar to which they refer are contained within the larger Annals book.) Aside from their comment that Tod knew his sources to be inadequate, which is neither sourced to any statement by Tod nor made by any of the other sources that I have read, this basically agrees with what our article already says. Or, at least, that is my opinion. I am open to being swayed. The quote is the opening paragraph of the introduction to Vol I of their book, and is the only significant mention of Tod in the work (he is name-checked about five or six times, IIRC). - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon, but are you bloody well kidding me?  Ror is King, seeing this full quote strongly indicates bad or poor quality behavior on your part. Either you did not understand the source, which I doubt, or you very deliberately and intentionally ignored the latter half which clearly says that Saran and Ziegler, just like everyone else, think that while Tod used to be highly regarded, his methodology/sources clearly indicates his conclusions are not reliable in a modern, historical sense. Taking quotations out of context to push a POV is extremely harmful to this project.  Please do not repeat this error again; please also expect that I, for one, will expect that any additions you want to make to articles will be accompanied by full context for all sources.  Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand your point at all. What about Saran and Ziegler's quote makes you think that they are criticising Tod? All they are saying is that Tod has not named in his book what vernacular sources he used. Though Saran and Ziegler (in their Phd Thesis and various other authors for example Bishweshwar_Nath_Reu in his history of Marwar quotes EXTENSIVELY from these two sources which Tod used) ended up using the same sources as Tod did. He just did not name Suraj Prakash and Raj Rupak in his Annals. Both Suraj Prakash and Raj Rupak are bonafide vernacular histories and if you read more in Ziegler and Saran they quote extensively from these sources and so does Reu. Please tell again what is Tod's fault here? Ror Is King (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Saran & Ziegler

message: I've now re-read the introduction to Tillotson, from which the other two quotes above were taken. Again, they have been taken out of context &, ultimately, Tillotson at best sits on the fence. Aside from what the quotes themselves acknowledge - ie: "Tod's close dependence on the local manuscripts" - they ignore comments such as:
Tillotson, a former Director of the Royal Asiatic Society, admires Tod's work ethic and appreciates that Tod used materials available to him in a way that enabled him to make the ideological points which our article discusses but, ultimately, he does not endorse Tod at all and makes a good deal of how Tod "went native" (my choice of phrase). He ends his introduction saying that "Tod's legacy today is primarily a matter for historians".Tillotson's book includes a contribution from Freitag, whose biography and other studies of Tod form a part of this article and whose opinions of the man seem never to falter. There is detail in Tillotson that could be added to the article but it would not change the perspective and I feel that we are approaching the limit in terms of length. - Sitush (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify the original quote from Tillotson that  provided above. If someone can be bothered to delve through the article history then there was at one point a sentence describing Tod being "of his time". That sentence was removed, IIRC because it the phrase is a bit vague. However, it is effectively what Tillotson is saying: those who criticise Tod today sometimes do so without full acknowledgement of the historiographic etc methods of Tod's own time. Against this, we must offset my own quotation from Tillotson above, which indicates that criticism actually began in Tod's own time - something which the article does touch upon, although regrettably now without the Macaulay quotation that set some context. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is POV pushing in the extreme by Sitush. Tillotson, commenting on the scholars who in the wake of orientalism debate are "lazily dismissive of Tod's work as unsubstantiated and tied exclusively to the exigencies of British interests"Tillotson (2008), p. 13 says:"Such views tend to ignore Tod's close dependence on the local manuscripts that he collected, as well as the clearly presented arguments of the book itself; indeed these views sometimes reveal a rather slight acquaintance with the object of criticism."Tillotson (2008), p. 14 How can Sitush be allowed to delete any positive statements that various authors, who are all far more qualified than Sitush, are making about James Tod?  Ror Is King (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tillotson

message: ===Example 1===
I would like to point out that my complaint is not a content dispute. Sitush and friends are selectively quoting negative comments about Tod and obliterating the positive ones. For example in the "Criticism" section, which subsequently got renamed to "Reception" this is how Jason Freitag is quoted: 
 From: 
* These factors, says Freitag, contribute to why the Annals were "manifestly biased".
Now from the same source, Freitag, if I want to insert the following quotes:
*Tod's Annals sits at the foundation of modern scholarship on South Asia.(Reference: Freitag (2001), p. 7)
*Freitag further commends Tod in his PhD Thesis: "Today, historical work in Rajasthan continues to operate within the framework Tod defined two centuries ago."(Reference Freitag (2001), p. 6.)
I am not allowed to do so from the same PhD thesis that Sitush had quoted from because his admin friends are helping to create a WP:OWN situation that only Sitush and his admin friends will decide that their POV will be represented in the Tod article. No one dare oppose them or they threaten you with dire consequences and then eventually ban you (as happened to me a couple of days ago).  Ror Is King (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those quotes are from the abstract to his thesis, not the thesis proper. We do not usually use abstracts. This is the same methodological error that you made when you previously quoted selectively from the introduction to Saran & Ziegler. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this your whim or is there a wiki policy on this? Please point out the wikilink for this. Ror Is King (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

text: The reason for rejecting the quote has already, and recently, been explained on this talk page. I see no point in returning to old ground. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point a specific link on wikipedia since you have already discussed it. It should be easy to do this for you. I allege that you and your friends are grossly mis-representing what Saran and Ziegler wrote. Ror Is King (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, here, for starters. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is preposterous interpretaiton of Ziegler and Saran "Aside from their comment that Tod knew his sources to be inadequate, which is neither sourced to any statement by Tod nor made by any of the other sources that I have read, this basically agrees with what our article already says."  How on earth can you interpret this? This is bad english. Ror Is King (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Saran and Ziegler state that Tod was one of the first to look at the Rajputs. They further state he gathered a lot of documents. And, most importantly, they state that Tod didn't know about the accuracy of the sources, that the sources were inadequate, and that they were, to a large degree, poetry and the word of local informants. That's what the article already says. You cannot just lift out that one sentence out of the middle of that paragraph and make it sound like Z&S are praising Tod; rather, we have to note that they are praising him, but only for a very narrow thing (being the first British person to look at this subject, even though he didn't really do a proper job of it). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme POV pushing and threats and edit warring by admins 

message: I would like to point out that my complaint is not a content dispute. Sitush and friends are selectively quoting negative comments about Tod and obliterating the positive ones. For example in the "Criticism" section, which subsequently got renamed to "Reception" this is how Jason Freitag is quoted: 
 From: 
* These factors, says Freitag, contribute to why the Annals were "manifestly biased".
Now from the same source, Freitag, if I want to insert the following quotes:
*Tod's Annals sits at the foundation of modern scholarship on South Asia.(Reference: Freitag (2001), p. 7)
*Freitag further commends Tod in his PhD Thesis: "Today, historical work in Rajasthan continues to operate within the framework Tod defined two centuries ago."(Reference Freitag (2001), p. 6.)
I am not allowed to do so from the same PhD thesis that Sitush had quoted from because his admin friends are helping to create a WP:OWN situation that only Sitush and his admin friends will decide that their POV will be represented in the Tod article. No one dare oppose them or they threaten you with dire consequences and then eventually ban you (as happened to me a couple of days ago).  Ror Is King (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Those quotes are from the abstract to his thesis, not the thesis proper. We do not usually use abstracts. This is the same methodological error that you made when you previously quoted selectively from the introduction to Saran & Ziegler. - Sitush (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this your whim or is there a wiki policy on this? Please point out the wikilink for this. Ror Is King (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 1

message: Continuing the example of POV pushing, edit warring and threats by Sitush and his admin friends.
I added the following quote from Dr. Richard Saran and Dr. Norman Ziegler who are both PhD's from University of Michigan, Ann Arbor and University of Chicago respectively. They both spent 20+ years researching the vernacular documents in Rajasthan, some of which Tod also used, and wrote a book  published by Michigan University Press: The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, ISBN:978-0-89148-085-3. In this book they write:
Tod was among the first British army officers of the early nineteenth century to gain an in-depth view of Rajputs and Rajasthani society. His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms besepeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents. (Reference: Page 1 of their book given above) 
I am not able to add this quote because Sitush and his admin friends WP:OWN the page and want to push their own POV. This groups threatens, edit wars and bans people who disagree with them. 
More FYI. Topic of Saran's thesis defended in 1978 was "Conquest and Colonization: Rajputs and Vasis in middle period Marwar" and Ziegler's thesis defended in 1973 was: "Action Power and Service in Rajasthani Culture: A social history of rajputs in middle period Rajasthan". I inserted this material on James Tod page here  and it was removed by Sitush and his admin friends. Ror Is King (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason for rejecting the quote has already, and recently, been explained on this talk page. I see no point in returning to old ground. - Sitush (talk) 13:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please point a specific link on wikipedia since you have already discussed it. It should be easy to do this for you. I allege that you and your friends are grossly mis-representing what Saran and Ziegler wrote. Ror Is King (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, here, for starters. - Sitush (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This is preposterous interpretaiton of Ziegler and Saran "Aside from their comment that Tod knew his sources to be inadequate, which is neither sourced to any statement by Tod nor made by any of the other sources that I have read, this basically agrees with what our article already says."  How on earth can you interpret this? This is bad english. Ror Is King (talk) 13:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Saran and Ziegler state that Tod was one of the first to look at the Rajputs. They further state he gathered a lot of documents. And, most importantly, they state that Tod didn't know about the accuracy of the sources, that the sources were inadequate, and that they were, to a large degree, poetry and the word of local informants. That's what the article already says. You cannot just lift out that one sentence out of the middle of that paragraph and make it sound like Z&S are praising Tod; rather, we have to note that they are praising him, but only for a very narrow thing (being the first British person to look at this subject, even though he didn't really do a proper job of it). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Example 2

message: Is there a way to arrange the images so that they are not all lined up against the right side of the article, most of the way down?  A bit of variation would be nice here. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Be bold and do it yourself. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My guess is that the right-justified style was selected purposely. There's no reason why a few images cannot be shifted such that they tend to alternate left and right. Personally I have no problem with the 100%-right-border layout; any reasonable layout would be fine and this is one of them. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay - I am just getting up to speed again. Yes, the layout was deliberate and resulted from quick-fixing a prior gallery-style layout that broke the article flow. My own preference is to leave as it is now, primarily because things display differently on mobile devices etc and having the images all right-aligned makes it easier to read on small screens. But I am not madly fussed and if someone wants to shuffle things around and can do so without falling foul of WP:MOSIMAGE layout guidelines then I'd have no objection if there is consensus for it. - Sitush (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: *These changes made when the article was featured on the main page are irking me ever so slightly. They link to articles concerning the British Army and Marines, whereas Tod was an officer in the army of the East India Company that was, effectively, a private army. I'm not particularly au fait with how close that army resembled the British Army: are the links appropriate or not? - Sitush (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression of the infobox parameter for listing children is that only the notable children should appear there. As none of the children achieved notability, the infobox should not say how many children, or their names. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Naming the children does not depend on whether they are "notable" or not.  If we have a reliable source then generally their names and dates or years of birth should be included as having children is, ordinarily, a significant event in anyone's life.  Greenshed (talk) 09:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just went to look at :Template:Infobox person and my idea about children needing to be notable is not supported by the instructions. Perhaps I was remembering an older version, or an unusual case. As you were... Binksternet (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I've gone through the archives and the only discussion I can find for this article is here. My memory must be fading now I've hit the north side of 50 ;) This point is definitely resolved, thanks all. - Sitush (talk) 11:55, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes due to main page display 

message: A few more recent sources to be considered for addition to the article:
*
** Review:
*
*
*
Abecedare (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  More sources