Jump to content

Talk:Barabanki district

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

untitled

[edit]

Bahut is a famous village in Haidergarh Barabanki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.28.32 (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Barabanki district

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Barabanki district's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceB":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of data of historic imp

[edit]

My counter argymnts are;

  • If we go by obsolete logic then history section should also be removed as it is all abot obselete thing.
  • Wikipedia has got many things which other encyclopedia don't have so comparison with others is futile excercise, infact WP has set new definition of what encyclopedia is.
  • The table being removed gives glimpse of admin structure of district in British era & lists local rulers who are part of History of the area, there are still numerous structures standing in the district which were commissioned by them and they have their names on them e.g. Belehra House, Mehmudabad House, Salempur House, etc.

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 13:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Other stuff exists" is a non starter. We have lots of unnecessary stuff on Wikipedia. It doesn't mean we can add more of it. And, whether the history section is relevant or not, is an unconnected issue. It is what it is, and it has no bearing on this material. You got to establish the necessity of this info separately.
  • Your second reasoning may be correct, but it does not mean that Wikipedia is an indiscriminate collection of info. WP:NOT. We have to stick with things which would be expected to be found in an encyclopedia, (nevertheless). This stuff is too trivial and too specific about landholdings etc. , and too obsolete to be on an encyclopedia.
  • If it is "history", it should be found in history books. We don't "create" history. We just note "history" as found in history books. Having large family homes in the districts is not a criteria for notability. Lots of semi information/non information can make the article difficult to read and make the readers simply go away because they became disinterested and/or frustrated. So, we have to keep focus on clear, relevant, important information. This is trivial, unimportant information.-Civilizededucationtalk 15:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
may be its trivial info for you but not for many others (especially for those who are intrested in the subject). Information about local chiefs/rajas is not trivial info imo.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 15:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's too trivial for history books. And it's too trivial for any other current sources. If it is interesting, it should have been found in other current sources? If not, what is there to show that it is interesting currently?-Civilizededucationtalk 15:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you see current sources then you will find barely anything about Barabanki's history, haven't you heared policy of rewriting history? it seems for Barabanki after independence govt decided to rewirie it so it discredited history records of Barabanki found in British & befor that in Moghul records. But it seems they forgot to write new history after erasing old one so, practically there are unexplained blanks in history of the area. Additionally it has been policy og GOI to suppress records about Zamindars, Tluqadars, Riyasatdars, Rajas, etc from history e.g. you will not found enough mention of Nizams of Hyderabad, Nawabs of Awadh, Rajas of Rajputana, etc in contemporary official records. Is Wikipedia also following same policy. The source/ref for the info is quite trustable & verifiable. Everybody has got different view about importance of things, a thing important to one may be trivial to another & vice-versa, that does not mean it should be removed.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 16:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary that you have to find a history book published by the GoI. Any current WP:RS will do.-Civilizededucationtalk 16:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just want some way of establishing that it is interesting currently.-Civilizededucationtalk 16:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who says it is interesting. So, it is up to you to establish that it is interesting.-Civilizededucationtalk 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it really intresting that there are few people who show their intrest while an article or section needs expansion but as soon as as it is expanded suddenly many people start showing intrest in trimming down the thing. It seems really easy to delete work by other even if it is sourced and referenced upon one pretext or another. Encyclopedia is just not about intrest its about knowledge and that to overall knowledge. You can overlook small piece if it doen't matches your intrest. If we go by intrest logic then nothing will remain on any article in detail becuse somebody will be there who will find it of non-intrest. BTW there are not many editors on this article but even they had not find it trivial enough to delete it.

Now coming to WP:RS & history books of GOI, imo Report of the regular settlement of the Bara Banki district By Francis Edward A. Chamier, Settlement Officer, Bara Banki, 18th January, 1871 the reference used for table under question is a reliable, published sources. And who said that one has to find a history book published by the GoI only.
The table in question depicts admin data at crucial time of district when district was undergoin reorganization under British in 1870s.
--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 08:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are just trying to "create" history, from a primary source from 1871, for a piece of info that does not seem to have found mention in any contemporary secondary source. This is NOT DONE. The British officials of that time generated thousands of reports every year. That does not mean we have to get everything on Wikipedia whether it is relevant or not currently, even if those reports may be WP:RS. As I said before, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We do not have to record everything that anyone and everyone ever said or wrote down. We have to establish current relevance of this piece of info, and there is nothing to show that this piece of info is relevant currently. This is a piece of non information which is just hogging space in the article. And, the fact that I have not added anything to the article, does not, in any way, preclude me from removing non information from the article. I have removed some other non encyclopedic information too. And you are the one who had started to lament about the GoI neglecting/ suppressing the history of this area. That is why I had said that it is NOT necessary for you to find a history book published by the GoI. Any WP:RS will do. Any RS, means, a current RS. A current RS would establish that this piece of info is important and relevant. Otherwise, it is irrelevant and trivial. Why else would current RS neglect to mention this? And why should we overlook this point?-Civilizededucationtalk 16:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, which current RS are you talking about? --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 09:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A current RS would be one which was published in the last 30-40 years or so, and which would talk about this piece of info. It is up to you to find such a source, and then, we could see what it says.-Civilizededucationtalk 12:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never gone through any academic work (in Hindi, Urdu & English) which will qualify as Current RS (iyo Govt. reports don't seem to fit the bill), if you have any such source (which proves your point) kindly let me know. I posted data and proved that it qualifies WP:RS criterion, now you are saying that its fringe and un-important piece of info, so, get your prooves and then remove info, untill then let the article RIP. (if you can't be constructive at least don't be destructive). --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 12:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find ANY current RS which would mention this piece of info, why do you think / what is there to show, that it is important or relevant? And removal of non information is not destructive. Addition of non information is. And having a 139 year old British official report does not mean this is enough to establish that it is a relevant piece of info currently. And you may please let the article RIP without the the inclusion of irrelevancies. Please look at the heading you have put up, you have made out this piece of info to have historical importance. How can we adduce that it is historically important when no current RS would care to even mention this? Since no current RS mention this, it should mean that this piece of info is not important.-Civilizededucationtalk 14:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never gone through any academic work (in Hindi, Urdu & English) which will qua--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)lify as Current RS for history of the Barabanki let alone this info. Do you have any Current RS regarding place's history then come with it and then modify the article.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 15:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I need a source to remove a piece of information whose relevance is not established? Do you have any Current RS regarding place's history then come with it and then modify the article. And are you under the impression that I need an invitation / permission from you to modify this article? If so, say so explicitly. Otherwise, stop trying to make such preposterous insinuations. And since you apparantly are unable to establish the relevance / importance of this antiquated piece of information, please stop trying to insert it into the article.-Civilizededucationtalk 16:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This GoI website can be a current RS to write the history of Barabanki and other things can also be sourced from here. I found some other travel agents giving a history of Barabanki, but I would not see them as too strong an RS because they are sites seeking to promote the place due to a commercial interest.-Civilizededucationtalk 08:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So iyo barabanki.nic.in is a current RS. Although at some places factually webpage is not very correct e.g. in paragraph 9 it states "Similar incidents took place at the GPO Barabanki ...", the fact is that there was never GPO at Barabanki it has always been HPO. But if we brush aside such inconcurrencies & focus on issue of local kings and princes of the region in mid half of 19th century, in paragraph 7 the website states that, "Many kings and princes opposed the expansion of British rule into this district by waging wars against them. During the British Raj, several kings fought for their independence ...". So, if you see there is certainly some intrest in local kings and princes on current RS suggested by you. Although it doesn't goes into detail about them and mentiones only one person by name (Maybe the person who compiled the page didn't had more info off hand, most of the British reports are not that easily avilable at district centres, I myself had tried it couple of times but it seems they have done away with these reports to Department of Archives of Government of Uttar Pradesh, so, now all such reports reside in state capital. also this page is not done by some academician but by few govt. employess & web programmers who may not even belong to district and have any knowledge save intrest regarding its history but they still have pointed to some importance & intrest in local kings and princes). Now, I have just provided little detail of the local kings and princes around that time with some admin detail. Is that incorrect or should I do copyvio of barabanki.nic.in? I have already included the website for purpose of referencing.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have undid my revision saying that it is still not proved that the info is trivial. Well, it is not upon me to prove that the info is trivial. Since you want to include the info, it should fall upon you to prove that the info is important. You have not done so as yet. There is no current RS which would go into this info. The GoI website only touches upon the events of 1857, which are notable. I would appreciate if such material is in the article. But there is no proof to show that there is interest in landholdings in 1871. It is not necessary that these were the same persons who participated in the events of 1857. And who cares how much of land they had under them, or who these persons were, unless they were associated with 1857? Only persons associated with those events should be mentioned. And, do you think the GoI site is non RS? It is not an academic source for sure. But do we have anything better? I am not sure that it would be a copyvio to use a sentence or two from the site. Do you think it would be? Is the site even copyrighted?-Civilizededucationtalk 11:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links in the body of the article.

[edit]

I see that there are some external links in the body of the article, linking to some commercial sites. These are against WP:CITE. They should not be in the body of the article. Secondly, too much description is being given about particular companies like their ISO certificates, addresses, etc. This is semi promotional stuff. It should also not be in the article?-Civilizededucationtalk 10:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reffering to http://comtax.up.nic.in/ link which you just removed, then please be aquainted with knowledge that it is not a commercial site but it is website of Department of Commercial Tax, Government of Uttar Pradesh.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haidertcs 11:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is not what I was referring to. There are other external links in the body of the article. They are related to some industries, etc. They should not be in the body of the article. They may be kept in the references though.-Civilizededucationtalk 11:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barabanki district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barabanki district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Barabanki district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barabanki district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barabanki district. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

long article

[edit]

I think the content inside is longer than how much it should be. I don't think the subject is so much notable. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added the template. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 17:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: Can you please explain, what is the basis of your assumption, "don't think the subject is so much notable"? Also, please discuss any planned substantial change/trim to the article here on talk page first before doing it on the article itself. Thanks.--Fztcs 18:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizhaider: Sure. But, first let me remove the template in case i am wrong. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizhaider:, the basis of my assumption is that I'm an Indian and I haven't heard of this district ever. If it was so notable, I would have heard about it before; I didn't. I can be wrong but I think it cannot be so notable. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Faizhaider: ??
Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 15:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can work on improving this if I am sure it really needs improvement. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 15:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightbluerain: Sorry for the delay, as I mentioned above, "please discuss any planned substantial change/trim to the article here on talk page first before doing it on the article itself". Thanks.--Fztcs 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 16:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Notability, as per WP:Notability (places),

"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low."

Also, the article has been of this size since last ten years, during which multiple users have edited it, few have trimmed it down too at times but none have questioned the notability.
BTW...I find it rather interesting that there are very few people who show their interest while an article or section needs expansion but after it is expanded many people start showing interest in trimming down the thing. It seems really easy to delete work using one pretext or another, even if the content is sourced and referenced .
--Fztcs 00:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barabanki_district&oldid=1244332164"