Talk:Banyan merchants/Archive 1

Sociology related

There are at present no sociology categories where this article would comfortably fit, yet trade, trade and market practices take place solely in in society, in sociological contexts. Twenty-first Century Western prejudices prejudice the analysis of historical Stereotypes of Asians, which may refer to:

• Stereotypes of East Asians in the Western world, ethnic stereotypes found in Western societies, with no hint of the sacrifices made by East Asians to maintain their stereotypicity in their societies.
• Stereotypes of South Asians settles for oversimplified ethnic stereotypes of South Asian people with no hint of the complexity of ethnic stereotypes, much less how South Asian people live and die by them.
• Western stereotypes of West and Central Asians, simply oversimplified generalisations against people from or with ancestry in Central Asia, and nothing at all for people in their struggles for their stereotypes to survive. despite some of them burning themselves alive in stereotypical ways.

I'm currently working on Edmund Roberts (diplomat) and his cohort, Dr. W. S. W. (William Samuel Waithman) Ruschenberger, M.D., who introduced me to Banyan merchants. His account is now sitting in the memory hole of recent revisions. In trying to make a sensible article of that in the context of East Africa, I found the very different views of Bolts with regard to how British East India Companymen viewed them on the mainland. Ruschenberger reported that (some) Arabs regarded Banyans as game animals, and research I didn't have time to add, reported an entirely different view from Ruschenberger's with regard to Banyan slavers. Prejudicial approaches to extended quotes makes me wonder what to do with this.

It was about Banyan merchants, though, that Magude's elderly women spoke in the most uniformly glowing terms. Interviewees not only stressed the "mercy" and "kindness" these men (and sometimes their wives, sisters, and daughters) showed by "helping" them, but also celebrated the ways in which a trip to the shop was like "visiting relatives," complete with warm greetings, offerings of food, and expressions of concern for the well-being of family members at home. Fully aware that merchants were trying to lure and cement loyalty with customers, women nonetheless recalled these commercial relationships in much the same manner as they narrated their visiting/traveling memories with true kin—except at occasional moments when, as in Albertina's description of traipsing from shop to shop for free sugar, women enjoyed a private laugh at the merchants' expense....Binding Memories Based on a True Story : Conclusion

--Pawyilee (talk) 08:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing "prejudicial" about it. We are not a quotefarm, and we do not usually use very old sources in situations such as this. I do not doubt that there is a place for this article, although I am not entirely sure why you are so concerned about tagging it as "sociology" etc. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, you are not alone! We all have our moments. I did a quick search on GBooks and there appears to be a fair amount of stuff online. I am trying to develop a few articles already but will see if I can give this one a kick also. I've no idea what has happened on other articles re: quote lengths etc but it is generally A Bad Thing. Feel free to get a third opinion, though. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Old situations such as this

I wanted to restrict this article to old situations, such as Zanzibar in 1836, when Ruschenberger dug up a 300-year-old reference to what's now nearly 500 years in our past (his ship, small as it was, had a well-stocked library.) "Binding Memories" cited above seeks to do the same. So far, I'm the only editor interested in Roberts and Ruschenberger, and only one has expressed any interest at all in this one, but adverse to considering the idea of merchant-customer relations as a sociological phenomenon. Write now, I feel I'm just spinning my hard drive. I'll look for this article next week to see if any improvements have been made — or AFD'd with prejudice. --Pawyilee (talk) 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would you want to restrict it? Are you aware of our policies regarding notability, primary sources etc? There must surely be modern secondary sources that discuss the community. Barendse, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no interest at present in the modern community. The communities, plural, were notable enough in 1836 for Ruschenberger to dig out a Spanish translation of a French source, and the 1940 cite I gave in turn cited a source from end of the 18th, but in the context of Edmund Burke, impeachment of the East India Company Governor-General, and a very good example of a very bad way to go about making a case. The latter is pertinent to this discussion. Following the "Binding Memories" lead to a more-or-less modern community of Banyan merchants in Magude, Mozambique, would leave the Robert's article in its present unfinished state )though the article I just linked suggests a way to work in some Banyans should I ever start an article on his ship mate.) Prior to my starting Roberts', he was only obliquely notable to Wikipedian numismatists. I think it best I take my suggestion to leave this article alone for a week, to see what you and others do with it. God, who sometimes listens to me, might even interest a Wiki'd sociologist. --Pawyilee (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You've lost me, sorry. I struggled to understand all of your first message but this second one is too confusing by far. All I know for sure is that quoting as you did is not acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your critique. Your opinion of my messages is shared by all of my American friends, and one Dane. My Thai friends don't expect to understand. I did get away with extensive block quotes at Lèse majesté in Thailand, but I'll leave this one alone and see what you and others make of it. --Pawyilee (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

PS I do recommend that entries on Banyan merchants in Mainland India be largely left to the article on the merchant caste, and that this one be largely devoted to those from Gujarati who traded in East Africa and Arabia. The difference is palpable enough for one encyclopedic entry to speculate that they may have pre-Aryan Jat roots, and so may not be related to the Indian caste; but that article is maintained on the web with a notice that its information is unreliable (other than for what its author was thinking at the time he wrote it — which is what seems important to me from a sociological standpoint.) --Pawyilee (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

PPS The difference between the two "communities" was also palpable in the two block quotes you say I can't post. It is also interesting to note that, while Ruschenberger reported his Banyans never chatted with customers and conducted transactions almost as silent barter, the ones in the Mozambique quote, above, chat up their female customers and even allow their own females to chat with them, too. --Pawyilee (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

PPPS I only meant to copy from the older version, not restore it. I had forgotten the link to Binding Memories Based on a True Story : Conclusion was on the Talk page. Would you object to putting it as further reading similar to what was done at Magude District? --Pawyilee (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional reading

Please register objections here so that they may be addressed.--Pawyilee (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have already explained my rationale in discussion on a couple of occasions: we are not a quotefarm and the items appear to be mentioned purely for that purpose. Your response then was more or less unintelligible then and you kind of laughed it off with a comment that even your friends/acquaintances believe that to be the case. If you really do have difficulties with explaining yourself then perhaps this is not the place for you. On the other hand, if it was just one of those things then please could you try explaining yourself again without wandering up and down irrelevant byways. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source: The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press). All three can affect reliability.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published (made available to the public in some form); unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source....--Pawyilee (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, I do not see the relevance of your comment. How does it affect a Further Reading section? I am sorry if this sounds nasty but I am beginning to wonder whether there is some sort of comprehension problem on your part here. - Sitush (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)