Talk:The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians

Removing contents
If poorly sourced texts then try cn rather than removing them. I've reverted the removal of portion of texts because those are also not sourced. Please, add sources before reverting my edits again. Thank you!--Tartarrman (talk) 08:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you doing? The article was practically unsourced and said very little. I am expanding it and citing impeccable sources. I realise that you are fairly new to Wikipedia but this is practically vandalism on your part. Please stop. - Sitush (talk) 09:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if that counts as vandalism. Please, continue but the lead section is still unsourced. Thanks, --Tartarrman (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Lead sections do not need to be sourced - see WP:LEAD. In any event, reverting all the sourced content just because of that was plain silly. - Sitush (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize again for that but one question, if lead section doesn't require sources then why you removed the text "It is a well-known and reputed reference work for the history of medieval India. Despite being over 130 years old, it is still used by historians..." from the lead? You could leave this with cn tag? Thanks, --Tartarrman (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't. This is how the article looked when I began to edit it. In any event, the statements that you quote were not and still are not verified in the body of the article and I think that the "reputed reference work" may be particularly suspect. Lead sections summarise the article and thus we cannot really write them (or update them) until the article is in some sort of stable state. It was stable for a long time but it was also very poor, hence my present attempts to improve it. - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * a lead section doesnt need footnotes IFF the content in the lead is a clear condensation of what is sourced within the body. When it is purely unsourced, then yes, it does. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  10:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Image request
This article would benefit from images of the book's cover and title page, and perhaps a sample of its coverage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The various volumes of the book are all linked in the External Links section. Feel free to go there, grab screenshots, upload them and add to the article. They are not in copyright, so there is no big issue about it. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A. V. Williams Jackson
Ping, , : A concise version of this work was published as volume 5 of A. V. Williams Jackson's History of India series. Will any of you be able to add this info here with references and create an article on the series? Solomon7968 11:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't find many third-party sources -- most of the results are revised editions of the book. Will keep looking. utcursch &#124; talk 13:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The History of India, as Told by Its Own Historians. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929132016/http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp to http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)