Talk:Sainis/Archive 1

Needs serious cleanup

Like many other articles on Indian castes/ethnic groups, this article is in really bad shape. It is written like a caste glorification piece, with everybody from Krishna to King Porus being listed as a Saini. Sainis trace their lineage to Surasena (which claimed descent from Yadu) -- that doesn' t mean that every person whose lineage can be traced to Yadu was a Saini. The article is also interspersed with random pictures of Krishna, Nihang Sikhs, Guru Hargobind Singh etc., which have no direct relation to the topic. The article also needs complete reorganization - there is no chronological (or any other) order, with World War II being followed by "Medieval Saini warriors". utcursch | talk 17:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please quote passage from the article which insinuate the following: "that doesn' t mean that every person whose lineage can be traced to Yadu was a Saini." There is no such claim in the article. With regard to "glorification piece", it is debatable since the article is generally well sourced. If you perceive WP:Peacock, please add the appropriate tag for other editors to address rather than descredit the entire article with around 300 references. Also, pictures of Krishna, Nihang Sikhs, Guru Hargobind Singh etc. are only in support of the sourced text with context. This tribe has strong and well documented association with all the foregoing. To call them "random" is a rather hasty reading of the article. You might also want to review a similar and ongoing conversation on the following link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saini_people#Clean_up_tag before posting on the discussion page and editing the article. Based on the conversation which you either failed to read or respond to in good faith, I am going to remove the tags you have placed as they are superfluous given the split tag which is already present on the article since last one year. If you still have disagreement , lets resort to WP:Consensus to resolve it. In good faith, Thanks --History Sleuth (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that your following edit on Maharaja Shurasena page had to be reverted because you changed the text of the cited quote. This practice is inadmissible on any scholarly forum , leave alone wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maharaja_Shurasena&diff=373285254&oldid=370800278

If you have concern with the Puranic word Yadava being wrongly associated with Ahir in modern context due to the latter changing their identity , then that is the conversation you need to take to Yadava article's discussion page. Changing properly sourced textual usage just because another group has appropriated the name, or the hyperlinked article misrepresents the name, does not appear to be a suitable practice for wikipedia, imho. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note reorg tag has been placed back. I agree some restructuring of the article is in order even though the content is generally very well sourced. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I hope by "some restructuring" you mean "WP:TNT". This article looks as if it was written by a stoned ten-year-old. What's with all the gratuitous quotes, {{puffery}} and boldface in random places? There may be decent material in there, but it will be hard to spot for the reader as long as it is buried under 90% chaff. --dab (𒁳) 09:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If the editor is sincere-intentioned and patient - which is the way wiki edior should be- they will find the "decent material", which you acknowledge might be present, in the article. Lets leave "90% chaff or grain" to be sorted by consensus in an itemized way. Bold faced etc are minor infringements which can be corrected without losing the content that is per WP:Source. Blowing up of complete article is far too radical as the article does not have any copyright infringements, etc to merit such a radical step. Further, all the 300 odd references could still be of use in the new article and they need to be retained. Pruning down an article is much simpler than building it ground up with proper references. This article needs to be split in most cases.Other infringments such as bolding, exaggerations, etc are very simple to tone down if the references supporting them are genuine and transparent. You may also want to review the conversation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saini_people#Clean_up_tag and decide to respond a little less strongly. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Concern trolling

The fact that we sainis have been categorised as OBC by the govt of India says it all.Whole of the govt of India is not a fool as compared to one man's rants here. We dont need misplaced and half baked references(where actually the refrences had clearly shown us to be oppressed people in the end) to know that we DO need reservation. Almost all the Preindependence writers are very clear about ourplight at that time. Just because one or two of the people rose to some sort of eminence doesnt mean we were the kings almighty.One person here may trace his lineage upto Maharaja Shurasen right through defeated kings and their subjects of laughable stories (whereas none other in India maybe able to boast of the same) but at least we want to remain away from such colossal blah.We are what we are and very proud progeny of our forefathers rather than any dubious entities whose authenticity as per history is still to be proved.We have to rise through hard work and grit rather than stories that make us the laughing stock of all. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.114.134 (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

To anybody who was misled by this troll about the pre-independence status of authentic Sainis of Punjab:

"The Khannas, Kapurs, Chopras, Malhotras, Sainis, Dhawans, Talwars and Puris, to mention only some sub-groups among the Khatris, and the Batras and Kumars among Aroras dominated government service, the army and the profession of law and medicine and teaching."

Source: Social change and politics in Punjab, 1898-1910, Shyamala Bhatia, Enkay Publishers, 1987 --History Sleuth (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

To all other editors. All of the points of this editor above were rebutted above with references in the spirit of WP:AGF. But he has continued disruptives edits in the main artcle and discussion page with the violation of the following rules: WP:POINT ,WP:TLDR, WP:NOR,WP:BLP (Groups),WP:NOT#FORUM, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND,WP:NOTOPINION,WP:SOAP and most importantly WP:Source and WP:UNDUE . This editor claims to be Saini but appears to be a Mali. His rage is directed against this article because the article carries properly sourced proofs that show Malis appropriated Saini identity in 1930-1940s and since then have tried their best assimilate with the authentic Saini community which disowns all connection with them. This was acknowledged by even some of the informed writers of British era as well as modern era. Sainis are a forward community in Punjab (where 90% of community lives) and the proofs have been posted above with references from a reputed paper like The Tribune. The list provided again for perusal as follows: Official OBC List of Punjab along with the Tribune references. But this editor continues to make malicious edits on the main article and continues soap boxing on Discussion Page to berate the community in violation of WP:BLP (Groups) and in order to blend them with Mali caste. Actually, this is "concern trolling" at its best. Don't buy this "we Sainis" troll talk. He is violating WP:Soapbox by intending to use wikipedia to advocate for a political cause , i.e. reservation, which , by the way, was firmly rejected by the community in 2009 after a well publicized political furore. If that controversy needs to be mentioned at all it would need to follow both WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP (Groups) guidelines as it is very clear from the newspaper citations that the community finds association with OBC group highly objectionable and demeaning and it is not even true as Sainis are an upper caste in Punjab It is amply clear from the tone of this editor's posts and his geolocation that he is a Mali most likely and wants to use wiklpedia article for the caste assimilation agenda which was started by Mali community back in 1930. He has in the recent past repeatedly deleled well sourced content, tampered with WP:Source references along with other vandalism unleashed on this article. This post is not addressed to him because we should not be feeding trolls. If he fails to comply with WP rules, he will need to be firmly warned and his disruptive posts will need to be removed by other editors. All prior attempts at WP:AGF and WP:Consensus have failed. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually do this, but I had to cut large portions of pointless rambling and preaching from the above post. This is an article talkpage, people. - This article is simply horrible, and instead of writing major diatribes on talk, you would do well to clean up the article instead. --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to this page, Dab. I hope you make constructive contributions. But I find it a little strange you would have no problem with the lenghly diatraibes of an IP user who is most likely a troll (has repeatedly deleted well sourced material and soap boxed) and would need to excise a well sourced response to inform the other editors about the issues. Please do not delete other editors' comments and especially the references that are postd on discussion page to assist in the discussion of the article. Also, please refrain from using personalized attacks such as "stoned ten-year-old", "hell" etc. Such disrespectful language towards other editors does not promote a conducive environment for editorial work. Whatever your motivations are they could be misunderstood if you continue to use aggressive speech and editing style. thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)