Talk:Herbert Hope Risley

message: *On 19th February 2013 I contribute the following content. "Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya , acknowledged his  obligations to the  works of Risley among other colonial sources for his book Hindu Castes and Sects: An Exposition of the Origin of the Hindu Caste System and the Bearing of the Sects toward Each Other and toward Other Religious Systems." The reference I provide is "
*On 19 February 2013 ,Sitush  (Assuming that 2.219.218.79 is Sitush , as confirmed by the admin Bong Said Zebdee here on my talk page)   'Undid this contribution immediately thereafter. In the edit summary he provides his reason - "remove: unsourced, and lots of people acknowleged HHR *then*"
*But in the Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya article itself  Sitush  has provided a reference  on 27th November 2011 which he improves on  27th Nov itself , his edit summary says (+ url) With these two edits ,For the reference to the following content contributed by Sitush alluding to Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya  "He called the traditional varna system, comprising a four-tier ritual hierarchy, a "golden chain" that had been willingly worn by the population, and he expounded on his beliefs in an 1896 book - Hindu Castes and Sects The reference he provides for this content is 
*Now compare ref [1] provided by me below and  and ref [2] provided by Sitush below . Both are identical , but Sitush deletes mine stating "remove:unsourced, ..."This is  presumptuous and contradictory again , and this kind of contradictory action on references appears  across many  South Asia related articles . So as not to allow muddle of this issue  subsequently  I will elucidate on the issue of "lots of people acknowleged HHR *then" , separately , ostensibly the other reason sited for deletion . Intothefire (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed your citation, sorry: I only looked at the diff, part of which shows your contribution is bold and part of which does not. It makes no odds because the content should not be there: it is trivial and undue weight, and Risley was still writing at the time. By the way, your cite would need a source, your contribution needs a leading space and a final full-stop/period, and you seem not to have got the hang of some basic WP:MOS stuff: book titles should be italicised (not that this title needs to be mentioned anyway). This is a Good Article; yours was a very poor contribution for someone with your longevity on Wikipedia.I'm commenting out your reflist below because it is not necessary now and messes up the TOC.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, I think that I know where this one is heading given your recent activity at Talk:Nair and User talk:Qwyrxian. Yes, I am fairly sure that I have used Bhattacharya as a source somewhere or another. That does not mean he is reliable for everything or indeed much at all and so I would appreciate it if you didn't start throwing a load of diffs here in an attempt to show contradictory behaviour on my part. If you have a problem with my use of Bhattacharya in any specific situation then take it to WP:RSN. Thanks.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You say ..."I'm commenting out your reflist below because it is not necessary now and messes up the TOC"........No you should not have  "commented out" the reflist , the presence of the reflist was fundamental to the point I made about your presumptuous (and  repeated elsewhere as well)  contradictory actions - self appropriating  the privilege to use and deplore  the same  source( or use of source) .I have had to reinstate the reflist .Look carefully again , why its important to have  the two exactly same references  showing up together...one by you and the other by me exhibited to demonstrate as another instance the point of your paradoxical action(s)  .Intothefire (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved your last note for chronological reasons. I can live with your reinstatement of the reflist, which excludes the heading that you originally inserted. And, as I expected, it seems that your point here is merely to harass yet again. Intothefire. I have already apologised for not noticing the citation that you provided and given an explanation as to why that happened. Do you want to make any argument concerning the validity of your contribution of the Bhattacharya point?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya content

message: The article says:
According to the cover page of  Risley along with William Stevenson Meyer, Richard Burn and James Sutherland Cotton compiled the twenty-six volume of The Imperial Gazetteer of India which was started by William Wilson Hunter in 1869. I don't have access to the book so can't know the full story from the preface. Solomon7968 14:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing a problem. It looks as if you are suggesting a contradiction between the article and the Scholberg book but I cannot see it. Is there some subtlety that I am missing? - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right! I was confused by the redlink "Statistical Survey of India". Contrary to the Linguistic Survey of Grierson I believe there is no formal literature regarding the Statistical Survey, so any information regarding it will either go into the biography page of Hunter or in the Imperial Gazetteer page. This article also says Risley "left the ICS in February 1910" but gives no clue about what he did in the post-Hunter editions of Imperial Gazetteer. Solomon7968 15:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Imperial Gazetteer