Talk:Singahi Bhiraura

message: There was an attempt, initially by  and lately by an editor or multiple editors who are not logged in, to expand the history section of the article. The expansion was opposed by multiple editors, including but not limited to , because of concerns of reliance on primary sources and of the text of the article not being supported by the sources.
Some discussion is clearly needed about this matter, and edit summaries are not the appropriate venue for the discussion. Should the history section be expanded, and if so, based on what sources? Are the sources provided reliable and useful for other editors to verify the claims made, or do different sources need located? Could some of the history be inserted, but not the full description of the castes (i.e., can we reach consensus over some compromise version)?
While there have been a few accusations of vandalism, I think that all parties are approaching the insertion/removal of the text itself in good faith, and I'd like to see a positive, productive discussion take place here. —C.Fred (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant additions were here. The problems are two-fold: firstly, the sources seem generally to be of a primary nature, emanating from papers held at the India Office etc; secondly, there appears to be an attempt to coatrack material that would be better placed at Pasi (caste) if only if were acceptable at all. It is well-known among experienced contributors that there is a lot of puffery and POV in caste-related subject matter, hence the community's decision to establish WP:GS/Caste. To my eyes, this Pasi material looks to be exactly that. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

text: *I agree with Sitush that most of the material does appear to primary-sourced and it is difficult to verify accuracy because the sources appear to be offline or subscription based. A significant portion uses a very POVish style and almost seems to be attempting to convince the reader of the finer qualities of some of the townspeople and a "demonisation" of another section of townspeople. The only parts that would merit inclusion would be the date of foundation and the establishment of the fort but only if there are reliable sources. The rest of the history section and the portions that deal with the Pasi community's "greivances" are off-topic and as Sitush says, they would fit elsewhere IF they were properly sourced. Certainly I think part of the additions effectively shoot themselves in the foot with the etymological legend of the town being named after a pack of lions " but this cannot be verified". Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 13:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But seriously, I tried to find sources on this place; almost impossible. What's the name of the palace, of the mandir? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:37, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, missed that one: Surat Bhawan Palace. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded history section? 

message: Your reverts amount to vandalism and I am making this charge in front of all the peer editors who can examine your edits.
You are fond of editing Historical articles but you seem to know not much of history.
For instance judging from your remarks you say the citations on the article are dubious and you have a problem with them. Most leading historians have written books from these records and they are kept in the British library in London I am a member of the British library and have access to these records.
The original editors painstakingly created this page and cited sources from the India office. Later editors deleted large sections of a brilliant article and one said the sources were dubious.They though the India office records were kept in India and had not heard of them. These editors were clear not historians as anyone who has studied the period knows about these records. However you choose to thake their sides and when the original editors removed the vandalism you reverted the article.
Here is the full source from where the research was done on this article.
The India Office Records are the repository of the archives of the East India Company (1600-1858), the Board of Control or Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India (1784-1858), the India Office (1858-1947), the Burma Office (1937-1948), and a number of related British agencies overseas.
The focus of the India Office Records is in the territories now included in India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh and their administration before 1947.  The Records also include source materials for neighbouring or connected areas at different times, covering not only South Asia, but also Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. The official archives of the India Office Records are complemented by over 300 collections and over 3000 smaller deposits of private papers relating to the British experience in India.
The India Office Records are administered by The British Library as part of the Public Records of the United Kingdom, and are open for public consultation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.55.95.60 (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above thread and also WP:NOTVAND. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Message on Sitush Talk Page Why did you revert the Singahi Bhiraura Page 

message: Dear Jonathan
I agree with WP:OR but if you read the sources on the article carefully and compare it with the guidelines to quote "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed"
Here is the list of attributable reliable sources of the article which were republished and meet the guidelines:
There are Papers from the AN Seely Collection: This a a British Library Publication 1972, which is a reputable Publishing House. AN Seely the author was a fellow of Trinity College Oxford, and a scholar in Persian Studies. He compiled these from the original sources and they were published.  
* Title: Caste in the Subah of Oudh Army by AN Seely Collection Area: India Office Records and Private Papers Reference: IOR/L/MIL/14/223 Creation Date: 1890-1895 Extent and Access: Extent: 1 volume The India Office Records are the repository of the archives of the East India Company (1600-1858), the Board of Control or Board of Commissioners for the Affairs of India (1784-1858), the India Office (1858-1947), the Burma Office (1937-1948), and a number of related British agencies overseas. The focus of the India Office Records is in the territories now included in India, Pakistan, Burma and Bangladesh and their administration before 1947. The Records also include source materials for neighbouring or connected areas at different times, covering not only South Asia, but also Southeast Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa. The official archives of the India Office Records are complemented by over 300 collections and over 3000 smaller deposits of private papers relating to the British experience in India. The India Office Records are administered by The British Library as part of the Public Records of the United Kingdom, and are open for public consultation.
* Title: Caste in the Subah of Oudh Army, AN Seely Collection Area: India Office Records and Private Papers Reference: IOR/L/MIL/14/223 Creation Date: 1890-1895 Extent and Access: Extent: 1 volume
* Title: Pasi, Chamar and Low Caste caste,under Brahmin Land ownership ,Oudh Collection Area: India Office Records and Private Papers Reference: IOR/Z/E/4/25/C516 Creation Date: 1854-1855 Extent and Access: Extent: 1 entry Related Resources: See entry at IOR/E/4/825, p986
::It doesn't matter who published the papers: the underlying content is primary material. For example, there have been similar issues regarding the works of Henry Miers Elliot, who basically reproduced ancient Indian texts. I know some members of the Seely family, as it happens, but diaries, letters, office reports etc are not reliable sources. Someone needs to write a book about them, not a book containing them. Furthermore, Raj sources generally are not deemed to be reliable, and especially not for matters of caste and history. - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Singahi Bhiraura Page Please read carefully and remove the protection and revert to original article 

message: The article complies with WP:OR as from a published source
I was the original Editor who started this article. I feel my article was very well cited. Its about the History of a small obscure town in India. It also happens to be my hometown. I( spend considerable time in the British library in London researching its history. The British Library in 1972 Published a collection of papers in Four Volumes called the AN Seely Papers. The Citations come from this published work.
British Library Publishing was founded in 1981 They publish titles in a variety of areas,
focusing on subjects relating to the British Library’s collections, such as the history of books and
manuscripts, including facsimile editions and general guides to our more famous collection items.
They also publish audio CDs from the collections held by the British Library — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalitshastri (talk • contribs) 15:17, 10 March 2014‎ (UTC)
:You have obviously also been editing while logged out. This is clear from your idiosyncratic style, although it would not be wise for me to explain further per WP:BEANS. Now, stop this nonsense please. - Sitush (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singahi Bhiraura meets requirements of [[WP:OR]] 

message: You have removed large chunks of materiel from the Singahi article on spurious grounds. As an Independent Wikepedia investigator I have historically examined several of your edits and there seems a certian lack of integrity to your character. I use harsh words here, take for instance (and one can not hide anything in wikipedia The Singhai article you said you did not believe the cited sources and removed large parts of the article. Well the article was cited with proper academic rigor, and its up to you now to go into the sources. I have done so and verified the sources of this article. Now the question remains why you chose to edit this article and what did you not like about it. I suspect and I need to built a case via an investigation on all your Wikipedia edits, is that you are following a political agenda and would like to see a distortion of Indian History. The sang Parivar or RSS also follows this agenda and several users and administrators have been banned from Wikipedia after their peers investigated.
The Guardians of the articles in Wikipedia are the users themselves along with the transparency of all edits which undergo a peer review.
I am sorry Sitush you have failed this peer review. Moreover I suspect the accolades and the praise on your user page is similariry manufactured by yourself and your friends
Rakeshvasishth (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a serious case of not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. Calling good faith edits "vandalism" is not appreciated around here... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

text: I think I'm going to call myself a Independent Wikipedia investigator, I like that title...although Guardians of the articles is also pretty sweet. Liz Read! Talk! 02:38, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Thank you for the laugh.  Whenever I see your name, I will think Guardian of the articles Bgwhite (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by User Sitush 

message: Please do not revert this Singahi talk page just because you do not like what is discussed here by various editors, and its does not fit into your view.
By removing comments of others you are stifling discourse. A talk page is an open discussion forum, please do not try and influence the discussion by changing the page and obliterating the views of the other editors. 
Like I say Wikipedia records everything. It has recorded your fingerprints trying to change the Singahi talk page.
:I reverted because I felt that you were breaching the terms of our WP:GFDL with your unattributed copy/pastes of material from other pages, notably messages that had been added at User talk:Sitush by people who have not even commented on this talk page. Calling someone an "ass" wasn't particularly helpful either, although I've had far worse. For future reference, name-calling doesn't change my behaviour; indeed, even the odd death threat hasn't.
:The various BT and named accounts are all likely to find themselves blocked for sockpuppeting anyway. If the master is allowed to continue editing at all then I would suggest that they use their block period to read some of our policies, especially those relating to original research and the difference between primary and secondary sources. A read of WP:CONSENSUS might not go amiss either. - Sitush (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sitush This is Ridiculous not satisfied in vandalizing the Singahi Bhiraura article you now want to censor its accompanying talk page via reverts 

message: This article was created in 2006. I'm struggling to find sources from before that time that verify the Indo-Saracenic style of architecture that is mentioned in relation to the palace. There are loads of sources later but they're all either mirrors or obviously copying off each other even if just perhaps not off Wikipedia.
There are photos of the palace but I'm not qualified to attest to the style. Do we need to drop this description? - Sitush (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The only "original sources" that mention the palace appear to be the toruism website and a couple of books ( and ). Neither of the snippets of the books actually focusses on the palace and only the latter book mentions the style, although it says the palace is called "Sural Bhawan". So I would suggest removing the description for lack of sources. Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palace architecture