Talk:Dhakar

Arbitrary heading

The article confuses three separate communities with the same name.Malaiya (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Malaiya: please can you explain further, perhaps with some sources to verify the point. - Sitush (talk) 07:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhakad (Sanskrit Dharkat) was a Jain community in Rajasthan mentioned in the inscriptions of Mt Abu temples. Dhanpal, 11th cent author of Tilak-Manjari (https://books.google.com/books?id=hF9jAAAAMAAJ&q=dhanpala+dharkata&dq=dhanpala+dharkata&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiht53crKPKAhUD0WMKHUPQCk8Q6AEIHjAA) was one. In Rajasthan they are now extinct, (they exist as a clan among the Oswals), however a section that migrated to Vidarbha is still Jain (https://books.google.com/books?id=4bfmnmsBfQ4C&pg=PA2118&dq=dhakad+samaj&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwin0dTHraPKAhVU3mMKHVifDYoQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=dhakad%20jain&f=false). It is also a farming community in Rajasthan (https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%A7%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%95%E0%A4%A1). Malaiya (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I don't think that is massively helpful. Your first source may or may not be referring to the same thing (different spelling and doesn't seem to mention your clan point in the snippet view at least). Your second source just says that there are Dhakars who follow Jainism - no big deal because we can just say that in one sentence here (although we try to avoid The People of India as a source, so something better would be preferable). Your third source is useless, I'm afraid: we can't use open wikis as sources. Does the Hindi Wikipedia article actually have any useful sources that verify the point, bearing in mind that their policies & guidelines are most likely different to ours? - Sitush (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Dhakad Jain community, a merchant community, has been, and is distinct (as is the case for many communities, communities that originated from the same place can share the same name, such as Khandelwal Jain and Khandelwal Brahmins, Modh Banias and Modh Brahmins etc.). Also there is a Dhakad community in Baster. Malaiya (talk) 04:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand that there are sometimes multiple communities sharing a name. We can mention the Dhakar Jains in a sentence. If there is enough material in reliable sources for an article then we can create one but I very much doubt that there is and we would additionally need a source that makes it clear there are a completely different community. - Sitush (talk) 04:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know several sources of information about the Dhakar Jains and the Dhakar farming community. Let me ask you - what sources you will consider reliable? Malaiya (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malaiya, you have been around here for a while now. I'm surprised that you need to ask that question. The best, obviously, would be modern academic sources. - Sitush (talk) 14:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is only mentioned about agricultural caste Dhakad (धाकड़) also include Kirar(किराड़). There is no association of them with jainism. Singh5325 (talk) 06:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss

User:Sitush, please discuss your reverts of my edits since your edit summaries are not sufficiently clear Sigmabaroda (talk) 07:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OBC lists that explicitly name the caste are generally accepted, although I have personally sometimes had doubts about them. The book source is a paper presented at an anthropology conference and, while the paper does detail a small-scale study, its description is of several castes as a whole rather than within the confines of the study. Although this bit is synthesis, I will throw it out here: practically all OBCs are historically and currently non-elite; some elite communities are also in OBC lists but that is another story.

You simply have to stop rampaging through articles in the manner that you are doing. That is why you are being reverted in so many places, and it isn't just by me. - Sitush (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to article related issues and don't try to act superior - Edit counts do not necessarily reflect the value of a user's contributions to the Wikipedia project..

1) Why is it you use can massively use deadlink Primary sources for synthetic Original Research, but I cannot directly quote a single sentence from an official High Court Judgement on the subject ?

2) How does a stray remark from 1 half-baked "anthropologist" who "interviewed" children in 2 tiny villages in Rajasthan in 1979 in a language she wasn't familiar in at all, become "considered by anthropologists to be a non-elite group" for a community widely dispersed throughout India which includes Brahmins, Jains and Maheshwaris (all of whom are prosperous higher groups) ?

3) Did you delete the High Court judgment because it directly contradicts that "anthropologist"'s remark ? Do you also know that the author(Gold, Ann Grodzins) is actually a Professor of Religion and her "anthropological" research is quite bogus because it was presented at a dubious theological conference. PS: Please don't presume to instruct me on OBCs, and consider no other editor is behaving the way the way you are behaving with me. Sigmabaroda (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not have to be online at all, and we also often have the Wayback Machine. I did say that "I have personally sometimes had doubts about [the OBC lists]" but I am in the minority. It certainly isn't original research - you are yet again citing policies/guidelines without understanding them.

There are problems with court judgements that go way beyond OBC lists. For example, we could always update to a more recent OBC list (it will be on the NCBC website, or at state level as appropriate) but it is difficult for us to determine whether the legal situation given in a court ruling remains valid. Legal language is also massively subject to interpretation, in a way that lists are not - that is how lawyers make a lot of their money and, of course, it most definitely is original research for us to interpret.

You need to check your facts again - try this before spouting nonsense about the writers of the paper, and note also the qualifications of the editor.

I am not the only one who has expressed grave concerns with your contribution style. You know that. It just happens that at the moment you are following me around a lot and so inevitably you are bumping into me more than you are bumping into some of the other regular, experienced contributors. As it happens, I think you are already on very thin ice and that your time here could soon be over, at least in your present incarnation. - Sitush (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) Gold is a Professor of Religion at Syracuse Univ. since 1993, 2) Who are the other anthropologists who make this claim that they are actually a backward class. 3) Do you have any SECONDARY sources that Dhakar is actually a backward class. Secondary sources like [1] expose that the inclusion in long lists of these castes is unrelated to their education and economic status. Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is also author of Hair loss : a resource book for New Zealand men, women and children and Growing season definition and use in wetland delineation : a literature review per WorldCat Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gold, well, you haven't read my link, have you? Nor have you read this. I am well aware of Raj angle - you have said yourself that I am one of the best and most experienced editors of caste articles on Wikipedia, so I think you can safely assume that I am on top of the broad concepts, history and theories. We don't need secondary sources for something as straightforward as this, or at least that has been the consensus for usage of these lists. WP:PRIMARY does not entirely rule out the use of such things. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer this question FIRST. Who are the OTHER anthropologists for that statement ? Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, you correct your complete misrepresentation of the writer's credentials then find some source that contradicts that reliable one re: non-elite. The OBC stastement does not come from an anthropologist. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The FIRST disputed statement is "and are today considered by anthropologists to be a non-elite group.". That "research" was in 1979 well before their inclusion in OBC list. The controversial text implies that SEVERAL anthropologists agree that Dhankar is 'non-elite' TODAY. Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained above that the elite/non-elite concept and OBC do not completely align, so I'm not sure what your problem is here. The paper was written by two people, one of whom is most definitely an anthropologist, it was presented at an anthropology conference and then published in a book edited by an anthropologist. The onus is on you, not me. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to seek a 3rd opinion on this source / your approach for this particular statement. Sigmabaroda (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Prof. Karen Malone does not appear to be an anthropologist [2] but a child education expert. The "anthropological" conference appears to have been on children, not on Indian castes / communities, so this source is hardly credible for supporting this statement / exceptional generalization. Sigmabaroda (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for BRD on this article. So dan't edit article until CONSENSUS. Sigmabaroda (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil and use decent language in your edit summaries.Sigmabaroda (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many more times do I have to fix your misunderstanding of policies/guidelines/essays that you cite so fervently? You were bold in removing the stuff in the first place a day or two ago, I reinstated, and you've been nothing but a pain since. - Sitush (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Can one of the editors explain civilly and concisely what the exact question is? Is it whether to use the term "non-elite"? If so, maybe it is obvious to Indians or to anthropologists what "non-elite" means, but it seems that that term should be defined. It is my understanding that OBC is a legal designation, which is clear enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that 3O matters now because the filer has been indefinitely blocked and the discussion above is just one symptom of why they were blocked. However, "non-elite" is everyone who isn't "elite" (pretty obviously). This provides an overview of "elite". - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be deleting the 3O request because there is only one good-standing editor involved now. However, I still think that the term "non-elite" is unobvious because it is not obvious who is meant by "elite". I know that OBC is a legal designation, and, as an American, I understand the concept of affirmative action to address historical hereditary injustice. Robert McClenon (talk)

@Robert McClenon: oh yes, some sort of definition would perhaps be useful but it would be long-winded and would have to be repeated across hundreds of articles. It would be simpler to create an article to which we could link but, of course, that would fail DICDEF unless someone can demonstrate how the term has emerged and why. I don't think it is one of those theories that has been much discussed per se - it has just emerged as an alternative way to analyse cf., say, class or caste. Without discussion of origins, framework etc, any such article would fail our core notability test. It falls through the cracks. - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon:There are distinctions between "non-elite" and "OBC" which Indians are aware of, and which Westerners need to understand. The opposite of "backward" is "forward".Sigmabaroda (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Singh5325 (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anybody help me to edit this Page

Please help me to edit this Page. I just want to put some information. Kunal Nagar (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can add it easily but remember only put information with sources and facts. Singh5325 (talk) 06:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

User:Roop Singh Dhakad has stated "I am national vice president of Society, it's my duty to search all facts and figure with correctness mannars"
He has been given a COI warning, but has continued to add unsourced claims to this article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add information with suitable facts. Don't put information with allegations. Singh5325 (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct the content of dhakar

It's a chauhan rajput clan ABHISHEK SINGH DHAKAD (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sai information dalo ABHISHEK SINGH DHAKAD (talk) 10:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]