Content deleted Content added
Line 205:
::::: I have been waiting for a response for a month, if I do not hear anything by the end of today, I will assume that my change (in removal of the 'traditionally non-elite') has no valid reason for being averted. [[User:JagNatha|JagNatha]] ([[User talk:JagNatha|talk]]) 10:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
:::::: I think that the reason why you are getting no response is because Fowler is on and off Wikipedia at the moment, due to personal commitments. However, I disagree with your interpretation regarding elite/non-elite. We do not make up our own definitions of what a reliable source says - we just say it. - [[User:Sitush|Sitush]] ([[User talk:Sitush|talk]]) 10:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::: I understand that wikipedia's policies are not aimed at scholars, but rather book-readers. Many other very reliable sources (both, translations of primary texts of the time, and genuinely well researched secondary sources) contradict with that one quote, in many ways. Surely, if you disagree with the removal of that phrase being used in the article, you must agree to the addition of reliable quotes from the Oxford History of India by Vincent Arthur Smith (and others). [[User:JagNatha|JagNatha]] ([[User talk:JagNatha|talk]]) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
::::::: Also, I don't think Fowlers absence/presence on Wikipedia should affect the quality of the article, and I don't think Wikipedia's policies do either. [[User:JagNatha|JagNatha]] ([[User talk:JagNatha|talk]]) 13:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
== The incorrect use of "Princely States" in the article ==
| |||