Talk:Rudranarayan

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Rajbhalatt Temple complex in Hugli.png

Unreliable sources
@Broc sources are not reliable, hence should be removed from this article along with the information. Timovinga (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I am not asking about sources, I am asking about the content. Is it disputed? Is it incorrect? Just because a statement is not supported by a reliable source does it mean the statement is wrong. See WP:USI. Broc (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If you sincerely think that for each of the sentences you removed there is no reliable source to be found, then go ahead and remove the content. But it seems to me that you just deleted the content because of its source without checking the single facts. --Broc (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have some serious doubt regarding everything written in this article. If you could find any sources for these claims then it will be helpful, thanks.- Timovinga (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a historical article and WP:HISTRS should be followed. Timovinga (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, there does not seem to be much in scholarly articles. However the battle here described must have happened! I only found this book: not sure what you think about it. Broc (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With regard to the book you linked, Blue Rose Publishers is a self-publishing company (see ) and Samir Ganguli is not a subject matter expert, so the book is not a reliable source.
 * With regard to WP:HISTRS, in the hierarchy of Wikipedia's "rules" it is not a policy or even a guideline, it is an essay. Individual editors (myself included) may want articles to cite better sources for history, but there is no consensus that HISTRS must be followed. I don't have ready access to: . Do you? If so, would you mind sharing by email to one or both of us the ten pages or so that are cited, along with the title and copyright page? As long as the amount shared is limited and it is shared with few people, doing so should be legal under whatever fair dealing, fair use, or similar exceptions to copyright exist where you are. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I doubt anything like this ever happened in real life, We cant write the friction as history. If we couldn't find any academic source then I think the last edited version by me is appropriate for this article, thanks.- Timovinga (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Worldbruce sorry I do not have the access of that book. Timovinga (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Worldbruce and @Broc I didn't find any scholarly work on this. This article is based on frictional stories but it is presented like history. Timovinga (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * When one dismisses 7 KB of content containing 12 inline citations of 5 sources with the edit summary, "To last sourced version", one is essentially calling the editor who cited the sources either incompetent (because they don't understand what a reliable source is) or a fraud (because the sources do not support what they say). Those are serious charges. One wouldn't usually make them to a colleague's face. It is rash to do so when you say you don't have access to the main source. That said, I don't particularly care about this article. If you want to stub it, on your head be it. If you maintain that Bhattacharya and Ray are unreliable, however, you should remove them from the references section. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Timovinga thanks for looking again into this. I would agree on reducing the article to only information available in scholarly sources. Broc (talk) 14:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)