Talk:Pasi (caste)

Verifying source validity, synthesis, and neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hello fellow volunteer editors,

With good faith I am opening this discussion with intent to review the current state of this article, specifically focusing on verifying its adherence to core content policies including Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. Upon a thorough review and research based on the reliable sources, several facts of the article appear to rely on ambiguous framing, original synthesis, and assumptions rather than direct, verifiable facts from high quality sources.

For the article to remain objective and encyclopedic there is a clear need to collaboratively address the following policy concerns:

• Some of the current references appear to be used indirectly to support a specific narrative, without explicit or credible backing in the source material itself. We need to verify if these sources meet Reliable Sources guidelines for the specific claims they support, ensuring we avoid original research and improper synthesis.

• Critical factual details specifically the "who, what, when, where, and why" are missing from certain assertions. This lack of precision leaves room for editorial assumptions, risks presenting a misleading narrative, and conflicts with the core requirement of verifiability and contextual relevance.

For instance in re there are concerns regarding how visual media is being contextualized. Using an image to indirectly imply a broader narrative without explicit, direct sourcing creates an inappropriate synthesis of materials that deviates from WP:SYNTH.

While the objective and the goal here is not to alter the valid history of the subject, but to elevate the editorial quality, factual accuracy, and neutrality of the article.

Proposed Objective

The proposal is to collaboratively audit the citations to ensure every claim is directly supported by its reference and remove any unsourced assumptions. I welcome input from other editors on how we can best align this article with Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards and ensure strict adherence to Verifiability.

I am inviting active Wikipedia Volunteers Primefac (talk · contribs), Huon (talk · contribs), and Dennis Brown (talk · contribs), who have previously acted in good faith to improve and tag this article, to participate in this discussion within the established platform framework.

Request

Please ensure that the discussion remains strictly in respect to the article content and sources, rather than assumptions or indirect linking, and that all contributions are made in good faith. I am completely open to hearing your personal opinions, ideologies, and thoughts, but please share those on my user talk page rather than here on the article talk page.

DPDP Act disclosure

In regard to judicial respect, the undersigned is open and accountable to the state as per the provisions of the DPDP Act within Wikipedia's corporate and the State's legal framework. LKO2DL (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

• Note - This sounds like you are trying to reinvent the editorial system that is already in place at Wikipedia. I left a contentious notification on your talk page. At this time, you are not allowed to edit the article, as you haven't passed the 500 edits / 30 day threshold required for contentious topics. I would suggest you find a Project that covers the topic, and participate there, along with others that have similar interests. Editing before you have met this threshold, or in a way that is considered problematic can result in a topic ban, block, or other sanction, and you being (theoretically) new doesn't get you a pass, so I would strongly suggest you tread carefully, and instead of trying to create a new rule system, you learn the existing editing policies and restrictions that are already in place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:24, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  Understood. I have no plans to edit the main article space. Per WP:ECR, non-extended-confirmed editors are explicitly allowed to use the Talk namespace to make constructive requests which is exactly why I opened this thread.

  While the 500 edit and 30 days limit is a standardized design meant to minimize disruptive editing, the core objective of this specific talk page should remain content improvement. Discussing meta-policy or the contradictions between the notes left here and on my user page would probably be better suited for a separate venue.

  Let's focus our energy here entirely on making sure the article content is accurate and well sourced rather personal allegation. Nonetheless, I welcome your thoughts on understanding the core objective in re contentious contents; a procedure designed for limiting vandalism and unnecessary oversight by a responsible volunteer editors. On my user talk page it appears a simple notification while here a threat attributing to "topic ban", "block" is truly based on the pro-claimed and limited understanding of the procedure meant to keep the community clean rather using as a tool to issue threat.

  "Theoretically new does not get you pass", appears to personal attack based on assumptions and misinterpretation and in legal context it is quo-Confirmation bias. LKO2DL (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  That carveout applies only to straightforward edit requests, not extensive content discussions such as what you are proposing. And while we're on the topic of "things you shouldn't be doing", fire your LLM. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 23:06, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

  I was about to say the same about using LLM here. As for my "pro-claimed and limited understanding of the procedure" and your opining my comments constitute "personal attack based on assumptions and misinterpretation and in legal context...", your LLM is rapidly pushing you into WP:CIR territory. If you can't participate without LLM, you need to disengage now and instead participate in the native language version of Wikipedia that applies to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Understood. I went through WP:ECR in depth and found that even talk pages are also counted quote-part of main subject. However, the discussion was opened in good-faith. Remark on allegation of LLM (LML) are taken as a positive criticisms and on a lighter note. While I shall refrained only to please change X to Y instead of writing a detailed justification after reviewing the vandalism/reverts (rollback) logs. Thank you for using a firm caveat your LLM is rapidly pushing you into WP:CIR territory and suggestion ...instead participate in the native language version of Wikipedia... while mere one line suggestion ... Article is protected in order to make changes you can use Edit extended-protected template would be sufficient. I shall pause here and reaffirm the exact verbatim as ... Wikipedia is a community-driven encyclopaedia freely available on the Internet and is maintained by volunteers across the world... has no role with respect to the statements made..... cannot completely wash its hands of the contents... For reference purpose only in the present form the article require WP:NPOV improvement based on WP:RS Hindu Nationalists (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and affiliates) have been trying to appropriate different folk-heroes of the Pasi caste as Hindu icons to mobilize the electoral prospects of the Bharatiya Janata Party... cited with a book published in 2009. Indirect linking Pasees with Pasi with a visual image and it read as PASES LOW CASTE HINDOOS OUDE (86) from The People of India (colonial-era ethnographic study, published 1868–1875) while the main section of the article has ...a de-notified community of Uttar Pradesh state in India.. in contradictory to the State official (e-District) include Pasi a caste. Further ...Pasi refers to tapping toddy... cited with a book named People of India: India's communities published in 1989 nonetheless no such references in the book exist while the book refers to Pasi in Haryana as Gujjar, Kaithwas, and Boria while in contadictory to the State of Uttar Pradesh where Pasi use Paswan surname which is well documented espcially in the Madhyanchal region (Gonda, Ayodhya, Lucknow, Gorakhpur etc) political figures like Kamlesh Paswan and Vimlesh Paswan from Gorakhpur uses Paswan surname instead of Pasi, Chandrabhanu Paswan (BJP) MLA from Ayodhya and the former (BS) MLA and present MP from Ayodhya, Awadhesh Prasad uses Prasad and while his family members use Paswan instead of Pasi. While authors and journalist emphasised in relation to the same while and their relation with Pasi community seen as COI and which can be found in article tone itself. While the article arbitrary used "Vote Politics" but stats speaks otherwise as per the population of Dalits is in between 12-16% (important note: every Dalit is not Pasi). So, far kings from the same community has been listed on the article but the edits (edit comments) state otherwise including BJP invented however the sources speak that neither BJP nor any present political party existed at the time people from the same community may ruled. Furthermore, relying on the sources like The People of India (colonial-era ethnographic study, published 1868–1875) and and hypothetically considering it as WP:RS which states ...PASEES were professionally thieves, Village Chowkidars.... After deeply looking the reverted/rollback logs (historically available) Geeta Pasi a former American diplomat was included in the article but her name was removed while the US State Govt well-documented her family members bearing surname Pasi including the children born there in the US.. The article require independent editor review with deep understanding of grassroot. It is irony, that the Wikimedia Foundation have dedicated portal in almost all the native Indian yet it states before a judicial bench in the Indian terroritry that it is merely a platform. In good faith I left the content here with WP:RS with no personal attack and if anyone felt otherwise I regret that I even just after 20 kilometers I cannot understand the language they speak (a nation where the language can change within few kilometers) applying same ideologly is universially not applicable and require deep understanding. It shall be noted that AI uses a massave amount of information from Wikipedia and publishing such contents without WP:RS and WP:NPOV becames a platform of misinformation. The discussion can be closed as per Wikipedia's internal policy, as I will no longer reply (not with a mala-fide intent but I am leaving the platform). LKO2DL (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Even if you were to use an edit request template, the changes you are seeking to make are extensive enough that discussion would be required, and what you've already written is a extended-confirmed restriction violation on its own. The reason why we have to restrict the topic of caste so heavily is because of a constant influx of editors whose sole goal is to glorify or rewrite the standing of a caste and who react to attempts to revert this off with naked aggression. And bear in mind that caste has always been a subtopic of a much broader contentious topic, where there is even less tolerance for this behaviour. This was a problem well before the ECR was put in place and still remains so to this day, in part because caste has very significant ethnopolitical implications within India despite their efforts to try and force the long-escaped djinn back into the bottle. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Object Class: Drygioni} 15:22, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.