Talk:Shina people/Archives/ 1

Hindu, Buddhist etc.

Arsi786, please explain your concerns here instead of WP:edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Cow people

Anupam, even though I reverted this edit, the concern expressed in the edit summary is quite a valid one:

Biddulph is controversial and contradictory. Hindoos drink cow's urine while Shins consider it unclean, again by Biddulph.

What is your response? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, I wonder why the IP sock was adding a big unsourced para mentioning John Biddulph. Also Vedic literature talks about ritual slaughter and consumption of beef. Purificatory power of cow urine is supposedly explained in Avesta as well.

Coming to point, other sources like "Sociolinguistic Survey of Northern Pakistan: Languages of Chitral O'Leary, Clare F." explicitly mentions that Shins were Hindus and so does "Hastings, James; Selbie, John Alexander (1917). Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: Mundas-Phrygians." As per the another source used in the article [1] only dead cows and suckling calves are considered unclean. If the live animal is unclean then why would Shins visit neighbouring Yeshkuns to get their cow-calves "restored", which means they keep cows. And why a group that considers cows unclean as the IP POV pushes would keep cow? Why would they be called "cow people" in the first place? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There are loads of Raj era sources being used for the new content, which are simply not reliable. Random officials, travellers and military commanders wrote those books. For talking about religion, you need religous studies scholars who know what exactly "Hinduism" is. The Vedic people were quintessential cow herders and they didn't regard anything about cow as unclean. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Kautilya3, I disagree with you about British sources. The literature about many South Asian ethnic groups today often reflects a nationalistic, rather than historical perspective with regard to origins. For example, modern sources from the region might posit a story about how a South Asian ethnic group's ancestors were originally from Arabia, etc. The British sources, on the other hand, present a neutral perspective. Regardless of our differences in opinion on British sources, using them shouldn't be an issue if we attribute the claims buttressed by them. That being said, take some time to closely examine the edit summaries used by the IP address, you will see something more sinister. If the third sentence of the History section is confusing (it was also added by the anonymous IP address), I would have no objection if you removed it. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, there is nothing to agree or disagree here. WP:HISTRS asks for contemporary scholarship and that is taken to begin from about 1950. So anything published before that should be used with extreme caution. The Bitish sources weren't simply qualified to write about the sociological issues. They are not reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Anupam, where is this consent? The sources even you provided says "Barhaminism". Also "https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/Military_Report_and_Gazetteer_of_the_Gil.html?id=UgU3AQAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y" clearly describes their attitude towards Indians that castes of Indian origin were considered inferior. Why have you removed that? If it is pov then intentionally describing them as Hindus is pov too.

It is irrelevant. Just as the mention of Gilgit people being considered inferior mlecchas by ancient Indians is irrelevant in articles concerning modern India. Religion on the other hand is different and doesn't correlate with geographical groups. Buddhism, a religion followed by a diverse group of people, but originating in ancient India. Islam, a far more widespread religion, originated in Arabia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about Islam and nobody is talking about ancient India, Buddhism etc. The book is written in 1930s and describes the attitude of Shins during the same period. The books says that Shins consider settlers of Indian origin who migrated from South inferior and without reciprocity took their daughters. Talk about what the book or early British explorers say about Shins. Nobody cares about your out of the blue opinions. This is anthropology and if it offends you stop editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.130.78 (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Says the one banned for anti-India POV push and comments. Nobody cares about your assertion of putting irrelevant POV content in the article either, which if put would necessitate the inclusion of what Indians thought of these people, which seems to be just that, inferior mlechhas and shudras. Not my opinion but facts as per historians (not soldiers, and many of whom were/are British and German) and this continued till recent history. The British soldiers wrote a lot about what they perceived as inter ethnic, religious and caste prejudices in different regions of the sub-continent they were posted in. Have you seen any ethnic article that mentions which groups they considered superior/inferior or hated in the past or the present? Do you find any mention of the prejudice the Germans had against Russians in the 1930s in those article?. Or the hatred Iranian people likely harbored or harbours against the Mongolians for those invasions, brutal killings in Samarkhand? Or Iraqis having against Iranians because of this, Saddam did it though. We can't have all the ethnic articles filled with these kind of unnecessary content. This is not anthropology. Similarly, I gave that analogy on Islam and Buddhism since you seem fixated on equating Hinduism with Indians. The reference itself is in snippets, so un-passable in the first place.

"Shins are noted for their miserly habits that they carry to the extremes. Every man has a secret hiding place in the mountains...." sourced by the same cow people ref [2]. Let's add that too. Lets add everything! - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense, you don't like to add from the British texts what you believe as noted prejudices but from the same texts take information about their past religion which in the original texts is Brahminism but you intentionally changed it to Hinduism. This is called POV. I don't care about your silly analogies. And if you don't like the British explorers remove every information you get from them and qoute some other anthropologist, Jettmar Fussman and Dani nobody among them mentioned any Hinduism. Shudra and lower Hindu castes existed in areas to the east of Indus river. There existed no Hinduism and its caste system in present day Gilgit Baltistan, also melecha means outsider. Also no old Indian text mentions Shins. Brahminism is different from Hinduism, it is what Brahmins brought with them, Hin and its caste system originated in present day India. Rest of what you said is irrelevant and crap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.130.75 (talk) 21:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Also what you call as prejudice, you've added the exact text in reference section (certainly without knowing that the said inferior castes were of Indian origin) and that was not wrong then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.130.75 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Multiple citations referring back to the same source

I. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics: Mundas-Phrygians. II. https://www.sil.org/system/files/reapdata/27/02/58/27025888630262322544465526417847562858/32850_SSNP05.pdf Both pointing back to "Tribes Of The Hindoo Koosh" by Biddulph. Thus removing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.136.73 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)