Talk:Basawon Singh

Possible copyvio discussion
See: Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hagiography
This article reads like a family hagiography. I've just removed because that, too, seems to be self-published hagiography. I also removed a statement that pointedly claimed that his former abode has been renovated by the family because the government would not step in - not only unsourced, but symptomatic of the hagiography issue.

I've got the feeling that little of this article is going to be verifiable but I'll do what I can to fill in the gaps. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've had yet another search around GBooks, JSTOR, Sage, Amazon etc and yet again all I can find is mirrors of our article and the aforementioned book. Given that the copyright concerns mentioned above still exist and given that there are many, many non-notable freedom fighters & leaders of trivial political parties, I'm going to stub this article so that it contains only the high-quality sourced information (eg: the stamp). - Sitush (talk) 10:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop this Vandalism Mr. Sitush, whatever that means
When proper footnotes and page numbers of books with ISBN number is given, still you are removing information from this page as an act of vandalism, and almost personal vendetta against the honourable indian independence movement activist, freedom fighter, trade unionist and revolutionary. Thanking you, Dr. Gayatree Sharma, trained History student, Doctorate in History, Indian Council of Historical Research senior fellow and journalist with the Times of India for 28 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.26.11 (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you remove about 75 per cent of what you have reinstated then it might be ok. As it is, the thing is ridiculous and it is reliant on what are quite obviously hagiographical works. I really could not care less who the subject of the article might be: we've got standards here and they differ from those used by fans and journalists. So, trim it or lose it. - Sitush (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Why have you removed his 57 days' fast unto death
Mr. Sitush, why have you removed an important historical account of 57 days' fast unto death? It is not hagiography or a fan's account. It is an account written by a trained historian cited and used by another trained Historian and journalist. May I know your locus standi? What is the training you have received, what qualifications do you hold or what experience do you have?

There are so many pages in wikipedia which needs your immediate attention for being poorly cited or even poorly written. Please rectify those before trying to edit a well-written piece on an eminent nationalist.

Thanking you, Dr. Gayatree Sharma, trained History student, Doctorate in History, Indian Council of Historical Research senior fellow and journalist with the Times of India for 28 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.66.87.54 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you are referring to Illustrious Leaders of Bihar and Jharkhand by Verma. The isbn was wrong but I did eventually track it down. No-one seems to be citing it and there are no reviews of the thing. The title suggests hagiography. I have no idea who Verma may be. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Times of India source
I have just removed, which was added by an anon today. They appeared to be using it as a source for all of the many unsourced claims in this article, and for the entirety of each of those claims. That seems highly unlikely to me and I'd be grateful if anyone can actually provide a copy of that article. - Sitush (talk) 13:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I have also just removed two articles by Rohit Kumar, who was "a 4th year B.A.LL.B Student of School of Law". I don't care that they were published in the Indian Express and Huffington Post - he isn't an authority and the articles were more like blog entries. - Sitush (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Obscure source for everything
I have just (again) removed an attempt at sourcing. I know that I am supposed to assume good faith but it seems so improbable that this obscure source should be able to support every single tagged statement in the article. I would appreciate some quotes, please. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I've just noticed my comment in the above section from February this year when an anon was trying to use another source to cite everything. I think that rather confirms my suspicions that they do not understand WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 10:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)