User talk:Twiceplus plus

Hari Singh - Allen
Full quote from Allen, p.30: "The fertile Vale of Peshwar now [1834] became the fiefdom of Ranjit Singh's army commander, Hari Singh, whose four-year governorship was characterised by looting, vandalism and rapine. It ended with his death near the mouth of the Khyber Pass during an abortive attempt by the Afghans to recover Peshawar, but the memory of his reign of terror lived on for decades in the expression ' Raghe Hari Singh - Hari Singh is here ', employed by Yusufzai mothers to hush their children to silence. No doubt the oppressiveness of a quarter-century of Sikh misrule became more exaggerated in the telling with every year that passed thereafter, but the term Sikha shahi - Sikh rule - is still used today in Pakistan Punjab to describe the worst kind of misgovernment."

Shall I put these full details into the article? HLGallon (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Does the Wikipedia policy governing reference sources to be 'allowed' or 'disallowed' differ from page to page or editor to editor?

References to the following sources were deleted and the "citation required" tag inserted on the "Hari Singh Nalwa" page. These sources have been "allowed" on numerous other pages....I am very confused. Please clarify...

For example:

On the Maharaja Ranjit Singh page Vigne, G.T., 1840. A Personal Narrative of a Visit to Ghuzni, Kabul, and Afghanistan, and a Residence at the Court of Dost Mohammed Hügel, Baron (1845) 2000. Travels in Kashmir and the Panjab, containing a Particular Account of the Government and Character of the Sikhs Masson, Charles. 1842. Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan and the Panjab, 3 v.

On the Battle of Attock Cunningham, Joseph Davey (1918). History of the Sikhs. Griffin, Lepel Henry (1892). Ranjit Singh.

References to the Imperial Gazetteer

Thanks Twiceplus plus (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The answer is complicated, but surprisingly it is yes. The cases that instantly come to mind are WP:PRIMARY and WP:COI. For example, if The New York Times was being used as a source for the article India it would be considered a reliable source. If The New York Times was being used as a source on its own article (The New York Times), it would be considered a primary source and should not be used. Similarly, if for example the editor for a newspaper had an account on Wikipedia, he should not use his own stories as sources because it represents a conflict of interest, whereas someone else may use it if the newspaper was reliable.


 * LI am not certain about the source you provided because I could not verify it. You can use it as a source if it meets WP:RS. The fact that it has been used on another page does not make it a WP:RS. There could be many reasons why it's been kept on one page and not another. Most likely it usually means someone didn't bother to check it against RS on the other page, and in the page it was removed, it was identified as an unreliable source and removed and they didn't know about it being used in other places. Mkdw talk 06:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mkdw.

These are perhaps some of the most widely referred to sources for Sikh History. They are chiefly reports of travellers (foreign), often eye-witness accounts of events and people they met as they travelled through the Punjab Kingdom of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

I am providing the Google Books link for some of the above reference sources: '''Vigne, G.T., 1840. A Personal Narrative of a Visit to Ghuzni, Kabul, and Afghanistan, and a Residence at the Court of Dost Mohammed'''  '''Hügel, Baron (1845) 2000. Travels in Kashmir and the Panjab, containing a Particular Account of the Government and Character of the Sikhs'''  '''Masson, Charles. 1842. Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan and the Panjab, 3 v.''' 

Books written by British historians...the first was in the British war office and was privy to how the British won the battle against the Sikhs...Griffin was a British administrator in Punjab soon after it was annexed by the British. On the Battle of Attock '''Cunningham, Joseph Davey (1918). History of the Sikhs.'''  '''Griffin, Lepel Henry (1865). Punjab Chiefs'''. 

Are they all unreliable?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiceplus plus (talk • contribs)

Hi Twiceplus plus. The best place to ask a question about whether a source is reliable to not is at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. -- Dianna (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)