Thanks for providing the quote from Hardgrave Unfortunately I have no idea of the context for it and as my analysis of the previously suggested source showed context is quite important Saying that I should not contribute to the article if I have not read Hardgrave because H is the only detailed study of the Nadars is an odd statement this article is about Paravars not Nadars and it should be evident that I have read a lot and massively improved this article over the last few weeks by using reliable sources Some of whom mention Hardgrave in their own bibliographiesfootnotes etc It is also evident that I have introduced the  differences in the sources where applicable  I do not have to prove any person wrong I merely have to prove my contributions are verifiable using reliable sources do not give undue weight to any issue and so on as per WP policies This article was a complete mess prior to my involvement as you can see if you check the history It is probably not far off Good Article status now the problem being that some would say it is too longnot focussed enough  there are still a few citations needed for the really old statements made before my involvement