Talk:Tulsipur State

Arbitrary heading
This is my first attempt to put an article in Wiki. Please suggest / help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjpsingh (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 March 2011‎

Some comments
I will write in more detail later.

I'm the one who edited the opening paragraphs. While it's true that Dang-Deukhuri is in Rapti zone, the Baise were mostly in Karnali basin. Also the Rapti becomes a tributary of the Karnali after it goes through Gorakhpur.

I "wikified" the first few references and used the "numbered list" feature for the rest. This way you can add more refs. anywhere in the list without renumbering. If you can find some of your references online (for example at Google Books), give links so your readers can easily have a look.

Best, LADave (talk) 09:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Was Tulsipur role in 1857 reason for no "outer Terai" in this part of Nepal?
Nepal lost most of its Outer Terai in the Treaty of Sugauli, then some of it was restored in 1865 as a reward for siding with the British in 1857. The main exception is that Nepal has no Outer Terai south of Deukhuri Valley; here the international border follows the southern edge of the Dundwa Range. Was this specifically because the House of Tulsipur had sided with the Indian independence movement? LADave (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nepal and India border was already decided by the time 1857 rolled around. It was more of a natural divide before 1857. After the First War of Independence, House of Tulsipur lost its land to British East India Company. The British parceled the land with some going to Balarampur state for Balarampur Raja's help to British. Similarly, some went back to Nepal for Jung Bahadur's assistance to British. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.163.117 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia might not be the right place for this.
First, let me say that this is important material. AFAIK there is little published about individual kingdoms of Baise and Chaubise, except the Shahs of Gorkha. If so, this is new material that starts to fill a gap in the historical record.

Nevertheless I think it probably is original research. Although references are cited, it probably is at least a new sythesis of this material, but more likely it actually contains a lot of new material. Either way it would be in violation of the fundamental Wikipedia policy about original thought.

Another problem is that the main author User:Rjpsingh may be too close to the subject. He may be a member of this extended family or a conduit for their views. This would be against another policy against promoting ideas, instead of presenting them neutrally.

The ideal solution would be for the author to publish this elsewhere. Perhaps develop it using family materials and in collaboration with surviving family members. The next step would be to actually publish it. It might even make a good historical novel, screenplay or TV series. A magazine article or series, or even an article in a local or regional newspaper. After that an article in Wikipedia which should be written by someone not to close to the subject, who can present it in more neutral, encyclopedic language. LADave (talk) 17:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Your idea of TV seriel, a book or a movie sounds very interesting but that requires a lot of capital. The information here is very neutral...nothing has been added from personal view. It was based on after speaking with over 36 people and going through more than 36 various books. All references and links are listed below in the article. Feel free to cite accordingly as I do not know how to use citation.
 * Here's a link to citation templates: Citation_templates. There are different templates for books, journals, newspaper articles, etc.   Here's how I use them:  I'm writing along and now I want a reference right here and on with my text.


 * If you're citing a book, it starts out {{Cite book    and so forth.  It's easier than it looks.  After the first one you will feel comfortable with it, and after four or five you'll think nothing of it.


 * As for getting something published on paper, I wonder if there are publishing houses in historic Awadhi cities like Lucknow, or in Kathmandu that would take an interest because you are writing about regional history?


 * Again, I believe this is important material. Most history was written from centers like Kathmandu or Delhi looking toward distant borders.  Here you stand on a border looking toward those centers.  The border between Nepal and the British Raj, with the tribal Tharu zone in between them that was not Pahadi and not (outer) Terai either, so it could have gone either way.  Before Nepal and the Raj, it must have been the triple border between Awadh, Baise and Chaubise. So this region may have always been pulled one way and another.  Was the House of Tulsipur an Indian principality, or was it one of the Baise?  Why in the end did the dividing line run *through* Tulsipur lands instead of following one of their borders?  Not simple questions to answer!  And I think in trying to answer them, you would discover and have to wrestle with important questions about nation-building and other things.LADave (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

House of Tulsipur was one nation covering India and Nepal before 1763 which was part of Baise set of kingdoms. It was known as Tulsipur-Dang or Dang-Tulsipur rajya. After Nepal unification, House of Tulsipur became one of many Indian principality. In fact it was known as Talug in India. After 1857 all lands was absolved to British India. Hope this clarifies.

File:2005 0226NationalMuseum20102n0054.JPG Nominated for Deletion
Please don't delete - this picture is available for free in the internet besides this person of historical importance died more than 200 years ago.

File:49th Chauhan Thakuri Prachanda Singh Born1933AD.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Please don't delete it as I uploaded this picture. The person of historical importance has been deceased.

Musikot Rukum or Musikot Gulmi?
If Har Dayal Singh married someone from Musikot, was that Musikot, Rukum (Baise) or Musikot Gulmi (Chaubisi)? LADave (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

From what seems / known so far - it would be Musikot (chaubise). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.50.163.117 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Demanding Citation
Start of copy from User talk:Sitush.

I see that you keep asking for citation on "House of Tulsipur". There are 36 various references. You may know how to use citation in Wiki then go ahead and use the appropriate citation based on those references. Some folks don't know how to use the technology on exactly how to use html and cite. Please don't raise questions of doubt on historical materials that have been researched and referenced in last 200 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.49.14 (talk) 04:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The "more footnotes" tag is not intended to reflect badly on anyone. It is a factual note that the referencing needs to be sorted out. I have since deleted some of the sources listed because things such as blogspot and James Tod are not reliable. Nor are we a genealogical website, and stuff that was sourced to Rootsweb and Royal Ark are potentially violations of our policies regarding biographies of living people. You also removed my copyedit tag when, in fact, the article is one of the most severe examples of something in need of copyediting that I have seen so far this year. I have therefore restored that tag. - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

End of copy from User talk:Sitush. - Sitush (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have just reverted your reinstatement of poorly presented content. I will be attempting to fix this article over the next few days, as per my reply to you above. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, fine - I will add history about folks who have died then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.49.14 (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

King Vivaswata
In the section House of Tulsipur, is the Vivaswata actually Vaivasvata Manu or Vivasvat ? Which of the sources listed refer to this person? And what actually is their connection to the House of Tulsipur? - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, on reflection, let's not bother. We have the Suryavansha article and it is both easier and less confusing simply to link to that from this article. - Sitush (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

J. P. Mittal - reliability
Can someone please explain why J. P. Mittal might be a reliable source. I cannot easily find any Google Scholar results for this person, nor citations of their multi-volume work. Nor is that work published by an academic press. Nor does it appear to contain either footnotes or a bibliography, at least in the version available via Google Books. - Sitush (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For whatever it may be worth, WorldCat's search results suggest that it is not in many good libraries. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would further refer to remarks here on this talk page and also on User talk:Rjpsingh. This situation has been running for far too long. We need to resolve it, once and for all. We cannot continue permitting non-compliant material here or indeed anywhere else. At some point, the contributors have to step up to the mark. Yes, en-Wikipedia does suffer from systemic bias, but that is an issue for a wider forum than this one. Here, we do what the policies say, and we try to abide by the guidelines that are in place. To a lesser extent, we also follow certain essays, where those are frequently noted even if not formally accepted - the classic perhaps being WP:BRD. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I propose to delete all unsourced material on 12 March, including references that are not footnoted (see WP:Citing sources). That gives the major contributor one last chance to sort the mess out: they have had plenty of past chances, so I feel that giving a couple more days of grace is ample warning of what is likely to happen. - Sitush (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Images
This edit summary seems unlikely to me. Many of the images have been tagged with regard to copyright/licenses/permissions but in any event, the chances of the uploader owning the copyright (rather than just a copy of the image) seem to me to be slim. This is a common misunderstanding with images. Please can this be confirmed asap, otherwise we have a legal problem. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Question "low Importance" rating
This article may be about a somewhat insignificant border area in relation to the whole of India however it is very central to the history of Nepal. The Baise-Chaubisi kingdoms created a framework from which Nepal was unified as a kingdom in the 18th century and still continues as a republic. For all its shortcomings, this article provides a picture of the inner workings of one of the Baise kingdoms. It is uniquely written from a point of view that does not revolve around the Shah-Rana dynasty, nor out of the frame of reference of the politics of Kathmandu. The article also treats the Terai as the transnational geographic entity it truly is. LADave (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference deleted
On Feb. 10, 2014 User:Sitush "Reverted good faith edits by LADave: Sorry but that website is useless: aside from the sources that we already have, it relies almost exclusively (and mostly) on Raj sources that are known to be unreliable."

Can you cite specifics? I believe the website in question offers a reasonably short and useful summary of the material, especially since several works cited in this article's Refs. section are not online and not readily available in many English-speaking locations. I am not an expert on this subject, but would like to hear from other contributors to this article. We should seek wider consensus on this. LADave (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want a wider consensus then you could take it to WP:RSN. However, if you'll accept my knowledge of the sources then there is no need.


 * 1) It is effectively a tertiary source, a synopsis apparently gleaned from the sources that it lists at the bottom of the web page. Nothing wrong with tertiary sources per se, provided that they are of decent standing, but there is almost never a case where a decent tertiary source cannot be replaced by direct citations of the secondary sources. In this instance, our article already makes use of some of those secondary sources.
 * 2) Any website that uses colonial and Raj sources is dubious in its own right. Raj ethnographies, history, archaeology etc are well-known on Wikipedia to be unreliable and are routinely rejected across a vast swathe of Indic-related articles. Some have been taken to RSN, WP:DRN etc and rejected there also. A couple of notorious examples are the works of James Tod and H. H. Risley but, believe me, they are a widespread problem. The possible exceptions to the rule might be E. A. Gait and Hastings (?), the writer of an encyclopaedia of religions. Our article doesn't see to use the poor Raj etc sources (or, at least, they are not listed in the refs) but the crwflags site does. That CRW use them is a bad sign.
 * 3) CRW Flags] are primarily a retail outfit. and do not even properly attribute their statements. Are they authoritative for history etc? I've no idea from a general perspective: I'd doubt it myself but I know that the site is oft-cited on Wikipedia. However, WP:RS does make it clear that a source may be reliable in context for one statement and yet not for another. In this instance, whether or not CRW are ok generally as a source is not important. And it is not important for the reasons given at 1 and 2 above.
 * 4) Finally, sources do not have to be online. Use WP:RX, inter-library loans etc. Choosing a poor source just because a good one is not immediately available is poor stuff indeed.


 * The solution here is to mine the reliable secondary sources, not use CRW. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sitush - so make the improvements you are suggesting! The article as it stands is little more than a stub, progressively whittled down from something longer and more informative if biased and prone to puffery.  Nevertheless the proper cure for bias is not wholesale deletion; it is pruning back puffery and documenting other points of view.


 * It seems you have been editing this article since March 2012. That's almost two years! I'm not an expert on this topic.  I am not connected to the family.  Nevertheless I am an interested reader.  I am frustrated that you are in effect censoring with a heavy hand, instead of encyclopedia-building.  I would rather see biased information than a perfect vacuum without any.  IMHO you have been "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". LADave (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if you haven't understood our core policies by now then I guess there is not much hope for you. However, I'll throw WP:DEADLINE into the mix. You are not messing with a numpty here, you know, but all things take time. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Social
Shivpur bata Shailendra solution 2405:ACC0:1307:876:31F4:536A:A462:CD30 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)