Talk:Garhmukteshwar

message: This is all that the town's website has on the history, which is minimal compared to what the article currently says. Furthermore, Indian council/tehsil etc websites are notoriously unreliable for statements regarding history that pre-dates the formation of their administrative body. Like much else about history published on Indian websites, it is prone to puffery and unattributed. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the paragraph, the first, that was disputed and it turned out to be sourced online. What the town's government website says should be a cut above the usual first-hand reporting in terms of reliability. The language at the website is more matter-of-fact than puffed up. What there was I tried to take out ("great" temple, when I couldn't find a source for it, stands out as a rare instance). The rest of the section is unsourced and poorly written. I thought of deleting it, but it's not making exceptional claims. Those paragraphs could be left for awhile. Perhaps they too can be easily sourced. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: They have already been "left awhile" before I removed them. So I have done so again. If you think that Indian town websites are decent sources for history then good luck with that: they are usually plagiarised from British Raj sources, which are themselves unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraphs that you removed were never challenged by citation-needed templates. The paragraph that actually was challenged was easily sourced to at least a website that would be unlikely to be able to disseminate complete fabrications, since it's apt to be widely read by those who could most easily corroborate what's been said, regardless of your prejudiced assertions of unreliably. Also, if there's nothing but the one paragraph in History, how is the section on anti-Muslim violence not undue? That will probably have to be trimmed to a bare minimum, regardless of how well sourced. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're going to accuse me of prejudice, you'd better have your ducks lined up in a row. Umpteen people have accused me of being anti-Hindu, anti-Muslim, pro-BJP, pro-Congress, anti-Pakistan, anti-India ... and anything else you care to throw at me. Such claims have always fallen on deaf ears at DRN, ANI, AIV, etc. Indian town websites are, as I have said from masses of experience, often unreliable for history etc. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: A couple of recent attempts have been made to remove the section entitled "Anti-Muslim violence". It seems to me that this section is unduly large and detailed and the detail is sourced to one book whose author has made a determined effort to "localise" the violence, using Garhmukteshwar as an example. Certainly Bihar, which is mentioned as another center of anti-muslim violence doesn't have a detailed mention of it on its page. I think that the section could stand some trimming, at least. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "Trim" is not the same as "remove". I am sure there are plenty of news reports and certainly it is mentioned in other books, eg: this one. Bihar is a state and, yes, is fairly notorious for being a hub of violence. So go add some stuff to that article about it. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Muslim violence section could be trimmed 

message: The town appears to be mentioned quite often in books discussing pollution of the Ganges, although I'm not sure if that is because it is a convenient point for ecological measurement or something else. I also notice a vague mention of new ghats being built there but I haven't yet found anything that says the project has started. - Sitush (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganges