Talk:James Tod/Archive 1

WP:INDIA Banner/Rajasthan workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Rajasthan workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Rajasthan or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Was James Tod a useless fellow ?

Below is Copied from Talk:Yadav Page

Yaduvanshi ahirs are different from other ahirs , said and written by all historians like James tod and sherring that they only sharename as ahirs however they don't intermarry . Yaduvanshi ahirs community is numbered in millions in 4 states .I think they deserve an article about their history so why delate it.Raosaab7 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The reason may be found via the history - see here. FWIW, Tod is a totally useless source and I am currently compiling modern evidence to support that opinion. We should not be using him for any statements of fact without also noting that he was a romantic, slapdash and generally unreliable. - Sitush (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC) So if you say James Tod was a useless and unreliable fellow then why his refrences are used by All castes and communities of India on wikipedia . Why not you remove them? Raosaab7 (talk) 07:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)Raosaab7 (talk) 07:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I am working on that. My research is now incorporated into this article and other people have reviewed it, including several admins. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have notified the James Tod Foundation in Scotland about this point of view. I will let them get back to you on this. 166.205.137.249 (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Romf Rd

In what context would they want to get back to me? - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reputation

Tod was of his time, an officer in the British imperial system working in India.

This sentences confuses me (it doesn't seem to make grammatical sense in the first place). Is it implying he had biases associated with that position? For a reader uninitiated with such things that doesn't seem clear to me :) --Errant ^(chat!) 11:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, prejudices based on British concepts of dominion, superiority etc but also paternalism and a desire for knowledge. The Indian and Brit readership will probably understand it but, yes, it could be better. I will try to make it more clear. Thanks for the tidying up! There is a bit more to put in yet + I need to find the source(s) for the two citations which have gone AWOL along with my notes (dog & sheaves of paper lying around do not mix!). - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, well as a Brit myself I made a slightly educated guess that was the context. :) I think the best way to start that paragraph out is to carry it off with a straight statement that his work may have been biased by his station and circumstances (of course, adequately cited, I guess noting who makes that claim). I scraped together a bit of a lead as well, I hope you don't mind. Interesting article! --Errant ^(chat!) 11:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The lead is great. I am dreadful at those - much more of a sourcing person than a summarising person. BTW, if you treat the comma as intended in speech then that sentence seems grammatically ok to me: Tod was of his time [slight pause] an officer yadda yadda. It is certainly a device used in rhetoric. It is probably reads superbly for those who are using text-to-speech engines! Now, on the subject of Britishness there is a slight ambiguity in your comment: did it mean that you were able to make a slightly educated guess because of that origin or did you mean that the Brit education system etc is incapable of educating you more than slightly? Joke, from one Brit to another. - Sitush (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

British education system? :S ;) --Errant ^(chat!) 13:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Sitush; do you have access to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - Tod's entry is a bit longer than the 1900 edition (I am happy to send you the text privately if not). However the reason I raise it is that it mentions some more sources that you might not have seen...

• Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 3 (1836), lxi
• Asiatic Journal, new ser., 21/1 (1836), 165
• V. C. P. Hodson, List of officers of the Bengal army, 1758–1834, 4 (1947)
• Gentleman's Magazine, 2nd ser., 5 (1836)
• P. Moon, The British conquest and dominion of India (1989)
• T. A. Heathcote, The military in British India: the development of British land forces in south Asia, 1600–1947 (1995)

Don't know if that is any use to you or not :) (I think Heathcote is quite good, I have a feeling it's in my library at home & I flicked through it once). --Errant ^(chat!) 13:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Good stuff. Yes, got access to ODNB. I have already clocked the JRAS & Gent's Magazine. (I have an ambitious task running on my user page to get GM at archive.org index, because the archive.org naming system is inconsistent & makes it hard to find things). I have not looked at the others but will see what I can find. Todgarh exists but so far I have not been able to locate the source re: renaming in his honour. - Sitush (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Malicious article

This is a malicious article. Just look at the "Reputation" section. NPOV is dead there. This is a bad and motivated article jumble of words.-MangoWong (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean, the more than a dozen citations from highly reputable sources that all confirm the same basic story is bad? Please explain. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not a GA Review :)

I can't do the GAR but hopefully me giving it a read will help throw up some issues to check/fix:

• He was educated in Scotland, whence his ancestors came, although precisely where is unknown.; does that mean no one knows where we was educated or where is ancestors originate from in Scotland? The sentence after this does not follow well, either because this sentence has two subjects (education, ancestors).

• The royal court was peripatetic.; it took me a while to twig what that mean and the relevance. I made a tweak to clarify it for the uninitiated but I wasn't sure if I nailed it :)

• His work was nonetheless influential (and the rest of the sentence); possibly a WP:WEASEL problem, perhaps reword it to "In its time Tod's work was influential, even among officials of the government, although it was never formally recognised as authoritative."

That's a few ideas anyway :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

All done. I didn't spot the weasel bit at all but the peripatetic issue has niggled once or twice. "Whence" made grammatical sense but I've adjusted in any event. I need to get out of the habit of using subphrases, I guess.- Sitush (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Some helpful hints

I quickly read through the lead and a paragraph or two of section one. Here is the sequence of sentences:

1. Lieutenant-Colonel James Tod (1782–1835), was an officer of the British East India Company and an Oriental scholar.
   1. Shouldn't "Oriental scholar" be linked to Oriental Studies rather than Orientalism, which is a field of critical studies and could be considered POV?
   2. Why is "British" inside the link East India Company?
2. Vijay Vaishishtha has described him as "The Herodotus of the History of Rajasthan".
   1. Why is this quote at all relevant, when a reader who has just started has no clue about "Rajasthan" and the previous sentence offers none?
   2. Who is "Vijay Vaishistha?" Had it been some well-known person, it might have been appropriate for the second sentence in the lead; but not a little known academic.
   3. (Footnote: Who is "Freitag?" Remember the reader has just started reading.
   4. Why is the Freitag quote at all relevant? A reader who is just starting has no appetite for academic humor. It is distracting.
3. Tod was sent to India in 1799, where he rose quickly in rank, eventually earning an appointment as Political Agent for some areas of Rajputana.
   1. "was sent to India?" By whom?
   2. "where he rose quickly in rank?" In what? The Company civil service, the Company army, the Company navy?
   3. "eventually?" When?
   4. "earning an apppointment as a political agent?" This is confusing to a new reader. When you mention rank, they begin to think some kind of military appointment, ... perhaps, but then you throw in Political Agent, and the reader wonders why that is an achievement.
   5. "some areas?" You want princely states.
   6. Rajputana? You want Rajputana Agency or at least link to that.
4. In 1823, with declining health and reputation, Tod resigned his post and travelled back to England.
   1. After telling us about his achieving ..., you abruptly bring in a date (1823) and send him packing back to England
   2. You tell us about declining health and reputation, when we have no clue why that might be so.
   3. "travelled back to England?" He travelled to India in 1799, but he "returned to England."
5. After returning to his home country Tod published a number of academic works about Indian history and geography, most notably Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan, based on material collected during his time in Rajputana.
   1. "home country?" What is his home country? You haven't told us his nationality as yet. England? Scotland? Wales? Some would add Cornwall? ...
   2. "academic works?" What does that mean when we are talking about a returning colonial official in the early 19th century?
   3. You still haven't told us what Rajasthan is. (Also I believe, Tod might have had an apostrophe somewhere in that name.)
   4. "based on material collected ..." A military man who is a political agent is collecting "material?" It is confusing to a new reader.
6. He stayed in the military until retiring in 1826, the same year in which he married Julia Clutterbuck.
   1. You've told us upstairs that he resigned his post, but he's somehow still in the military. What then did he resign from?
   2. Julia Clutterbuck? Are we supposed to know her name? If not, why is that name worthy of the lead? The new reader is thinking ... Clutterbutt.
7. Tod had long suffered ill health, and died in 1835 aged 53.
   1. "Long suffered ill-health?" Again this is a surprise to the new reader who had little clue about Tod's health and is still thinking of Clutterbutt ...

You get the idea ...

There is a Wikipedia link Principle of Least Surprise ... and even if there isn't, you can imagine what such a link might say. There needs to be coherence in the article, but especially so in the lead.

I think you are trying to hurry this article through (the Wikipedia award mill). I like your enthusiasm and energy, but articles sometimes need to be nursed a little. They need time. Why the hurry? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Why do you have "sic" after "intestine" in the quote in section 1? That's entirely correct usage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote most of the lead as a stop gap some time back before Sitush expanded the article - it does need work, yes. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There may be problems with the lead. As I said at Talk:James_Tod#Reputation, I am useless at writing them from scratch. As I understand it, the point of a lead is to summarise an article. It is precisely because I am a "detail" sort of person that I am not much good at the things. ErrantX stepped in.

As far as the "award mill" goes, sorry but no. Initially, I was merely developing a (basically) copy/pasted Encyclopedia Britannica 1911 article. I studied history and did so with some rather big names in that field, one on one, & so it kind of appealed to me. It was someone else that suggested that I should nominate the thing at GAN after going through a peer review. The PR was done and those issues that could be addressed have been addressed. If you dig around my contributions you should get the idea that awards are not exactly a priority; for example, the chances of anyone getting caste articles to GA status are pretty slim, although probably some have made it.

Regarding the sic, my understanding is that the current, more common usage is "internecine". If I am wrong then I am wrong but I am willing to put a fair bit of money that I do not actually have on the point that if the sic is removed then before too long someone will turn up and make that change, without reference to the cited source.

Feel free to amend anything that you think is dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW, the "British" is inside the link because there was a Dutch East India Company. As I suspect you are actually aware, the BEIC was at once an army, a trading company and a civil service. It operated in all those aspects until the late 1850s, long after Tod's time. - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I only have a minute. Why don't you swap the first two paragraphs of the version of June 2011 with the current lead for now? (Unless, of course, that version has accuracy issues.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It does seem inaccurate in places TBH. I have added more into the current second/third paragraphs - it still needs work though:

• Something in the first paragraph broadly overviewing his notability
• Second para needs a cleaning
• Third para needs more detail on his works & later life :) (numismatist stuff, etc.)
• Fourth para needs expanding (touch on the "Worldview" section perhaps and add more about criticism/praise)

I started the process, might add some more later. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(Reply 1 to Sitush) First my apologies for the sentence about the "award mill." It didn't come out right. The emphasis there was on "hurry," not on "award mill." I have myself submitted FACs and weighed in on countless more, so the award system (or its pursuit) is not something I disapprove of. I simply meant that if you think an article is ready to be a GAN (or an FAC), don't nominate it just then, but keep it around for a week or two (or three) more, kick it around a little, read a paragraph here, a paragraph there as you work on other articles. You get some objective distance that way and are better able to see it from the point of view of a new reader (which is whom it is written for). Also, I don't believe you can't summarize. Everyone can summarize. Even if we don't write leads for articles, we summarize subconsciously when we read anything. After all, that's how we spot inconsistencies in things. We summarize subconsciously, when we say to ourselves, "He looks different." (The current (visual) summary contradicts the previous one.) We are obviously not processing all the details for that decision. The reason why summarizing is important is that that is exactly what the reader is doing as they proceed from paragraph to paragraph (even if they are not conscious of it). If they are not able to summarize a paragraph, they reason that it lacks cohesion, coherence, or both. (When the disparate elements don't relate to each other, it is not cohesive; when they contradict each other, it is not coherent.) When that happens a few times a reader usually stops reading and moves on to something else. For a reviewer, it is different, of course. If they have time and patience, they try to figure out the issues (not always easy) and explain the problem to the author; otherwise, they too say something perfunctory and move on. In general, it is a lot easier to deal with issues of grammar, style, links, etc. than issues of cohesion and coherence. The reviewer, after all, is just another Wikipedia editor, who is (somewhat selflessly) offering to review the article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(reply 2 to Sitush) As for the EIC, all I meant was that it might be less confusing to the reader if you wrote: "British East India Company." Again, less surprise. (But this not a biggie, I grant you.) As for "intestine," it means "domestic," or "civil," or "inside the borders of a country." It is a little dated, but is still used. "Internecine," means "internal to a community or group or people" (and it also means "bloody"). So, you can say, "internecine feuding among journalists," but you can't use "intestine" there. True, someone will likely attempt to change it, but it might be better to either link it to Wiktionary (if it has an entry for intestine (adj)) or footnote it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

PS And I just checked, Wiktionary does have an entry, intestine Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

PPS I've added a bunch of pictures (and maps). I hope they are helpful. Many are plates from the Annals. There's an etching of Tod fishing. Nice pictures. I can now go back to working on the Kurmi article (so that when I finish it, I can go back to working on what I'm really supposed to be working on). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to switching them some from the galleries and using them in the standard way - it breaks the article up a bit at the moment. (Good finds though!) --Errant ^(chat!) 10:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

None whatsoever. It's all yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

motivated article

the article is highly motivated some jason frietag is given just a god like reputation and who the hell is sadasivan omg, is this some kind of motivated article to defame a renowned historian. People who dont stand near the status of james tod are criticizing him let the more prominent indian historian and british imperalist historian criticize him, till date i have not come across one famous and noted historian who has criticized him. I am deleting the reputation portion as this is motivated , for example have a look at some commnets "A modern writer from India, S. N. Sadasivan, is another who has stated that the historical reliability of Indian texts is in doubt" who the hell is sadasivan similarly who is this crooke and frietag . And who the hell these tagore and ghosh are. James tod come in category of elphinstone, va smith, james grant duff and these painter, artists and unknown personality with no knowledge are criticizing TOD.!!!!!!! Lets see what the another great historian VA smith has to write about james tod--Colonel James Tod, author of the inimitable Annals of Bajasthan, retired in 1823 and died twelve years later. Another famous historian of the period is Grant Duff, who told the story of the Marathas in a work which ranks as an original ... Historians of all level in india ranging from top most to bottom most cite tod sources and some unknown writers who are not cited once in the whole internet are called critics.This is needed to be remove completely seems like a motivated propaganda. When some noteworthy critics will be found by the jealous group then we can create a section as criticism but not with such low level of critics.122.161.105.221 (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

People like Sitush have motivated reasons and i have personally reason whats the reason for that he has showed similar tendency on Shivaji page and he stopped commenting after i gave the historical evidences which put a big lock on his mouth , he is motivated for doing all this and some other such as qwyrian are the similar users with a particular motivation. Not a single critic of tod in this article has the position to criticize him.122.161.105.221 (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Searching for notable indian historians on most sites will show the name of james tod , i think a different kind of people which i have already identified such as sitush,qwyrian and some others are behind this they even deleted the shivaji rajput origin even though backed with historical evidence only when they saw the articles dating back to 17th century then they leave away the discussion page on Shivaji. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/lr/2002/10/06/stories/2002100600210300.htm HOW MAny historians are so famous that more than 150 years of their death they are mentioned in the national newspapers of the country where they live. I have pointed some editors and their attitude as well but i dont know whats the rules and regulations on wiki because some of them are clearly destroying the reputation of one man , WHY because they dont like him. The historian whose name is so common in top universities of India such as delhi university http://www.du.ac.in/fileadmin/DU/students/Pdf/admissions/PG/2009/mphil-eng-detail-09.pdf along with other eminent historian such as james mill, va smith who the hell guys like sitush and qxyrian fooling and about critics no one in this world is not left completely alone be it the top sportsperson or the best scientists.122.161.105.221 (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dkpd.com/servlet/dkGetBiblio?bno=018645 in indian histirography in almost all the books the most common names of eminent indian historian name publish that of james tod now because some jealous people dont like him dont means his contribution is zero their is every historian with specialization like james grant duff on maratha and james tod on rajasthan and jadunath sarkar on mughal. Now criticize jadunath sarkar who has written only about mughals for fame and recognition , criticism is different this is to pull dow one reputation by making malicious and dubious comments the commentators themselves are not known try searching the names of freiteg, crooke and many more you will find no special mention of these guys .122.161.105.221 (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, a quick search just of this particular website shows S. N. Sadasivan and William Crooke. There are, of course, many, many more for all of the sources cited. Methinks that you are letting your emotions get in the way of sober research. - Sitush (talk) 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

omg the small wiki pedia articles as credible source are you out of your mind can you see the sources given by me the delhi university, lp mathur good historian and Benaras hindu university oh you are simply trying to fool yourself by those small wiki articles those dont mention them as prominent.NISHUKUMAR (talk) 05:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

and what about the national indian newspaper "THE HINDU" which article is dated more than 150 years after james tod death his name is still a recongnized name in india after more than 150 years of his death and you are compairing crooke and sadasivan with James tod this shows the level of knowledge you boast. you are simply motivated .NISHUKUMAR (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, those links are quite helpful, and in fact help establish that the IP author doesn't understand what they're looking at. The first on, to The Hindu, refers to a new book about "Calcutta based English poets", of whom Tod is included. That hardly makes the case that Tod is a historical expert. But it's the second one that really shows why you're misunderstanding. First, notice that the class that syllabus is for is about British history, not Indian. But even forgetting about that, look at the other names on the list. The very first two, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke jump out at me right away. Now, no historian would ever question that understanding Hobbes and Locke is critical in understanding the course of European, American--heck, World History. These two philosophers had an enormous impact on the leaders (political, economic, and otherwise), religions, and governments of their time. And yet, of course, I sincerely doubt you would find any who actually think that Hobbes was right, and perhaps only a few more that would agree (wholly) with Locke. In other words, we must study Locke and Hobbes, not because they are correct, but because they have had an enormous impact on the development of world history, philosophy, religion, government, etc. In fact, the same thing is true of James Tod, albeit on a smaller scale. Neither Sitush nor myself would ever argue that James Tod has not been extremely important influence on Indian and British history. Nonetheless, that does not mean that we therefore have to accept that what Tod wrote is actually an accurate representation of the real lives of people in India, and especially not about his reports about Indian history (which were second hand and heavily biased in favor of the groups he was aligned with). So, yes, Tod is still studied today. No, Tod is not considered to be "accurate" today. I hope that explains what's going on in this article. It says that Tod was influential, it also points out that modern scholars find his research to be spotty at best. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

i have seen the kind of edits you make qxyrian further the modern scholars, you are wrong in using this word reason the scholars who have the same status as that of james tod can criticize him and not just any other scholar his level came in the level of top british indian historian and not just another so can you give me a source where a prominent historian criticized himNISHUKUMAR (talk) 06:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Please can you define "prominent historian". - Sitush (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

yes James tod came in the selected band of most prominent indian historians and his name featured in almost all the prominent historian list those guys can criticize each other but not every second budding historian.NISHUKUMAR (talk) 06:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand me. You need to define what a prominent historian means to you in order that your query can be answered. Otherwise, every person who may be put forward will simply be dismissed by you as not being sufficiently "prominent". Yours is a rather illogical argument, I am afraid. Certainly it is so in the context that Wikipedia operates. - Sitush (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

yes thats what you and qxyrian do to articles which dont suit you didnt you, you remove those by saying they are not reliable and you have said the same thing in shivaji page as well and now you are asking what is reliable. Great example of double standards guys like you and so many handle wikipedia and thats why its a crap.NISHUKUMAR (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We have a facility here called the reliable sources noticeboard. If you believe any of the sources cited in this article are not reliable then you can raise them at WP:RSN and ask for third-party opinions. I would suggest that you do just that since you are so adamant regarding your position. - Sitush (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

here the talk is about not sources the persons themselves are not distinguished enough to include their comments on james tod page. Why you and qxryiand deleted marxist and anti hindu content from the romilla thapar page the source were reliable and you gave the excuse that we need a prominent historian and not politicians similarly freiteg and sadasiva or crooke are not distinguished historians or scholars.NISHUKUMAR (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I cannot recall ever editing the Thapar article and know nearly nothing about her other than that she is controversial. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, not "distinguished" sources. If you find this unpalatable then perhaps the project is not best suited to you. That is just how it is: there are plenty of other websites etc where you can voice your opinions. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Minor note: I've never edited either Shivaji or Romila Thapar. Maybe there's some other article you're thinking of. In any event, if you think that the sources in this article don't meet the reliable sources guidelines, please take the issue to WP:RSN after your block (you should be blocked shortly for violating WP:3RR after being warned. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Sitush, you edited it once, as far as I see, to add the US dollar template (see [1]). <sarcasm>That was awfully biased of you.</sarcasm> 06:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

here the thing is not reliable sources here the persons in contention themselves are not reliable and many points have taken from them because they are not reliable in this topic. Freiteg that man dont know a single thing about india neither has got many citations similarly sadasivan now who the hell is that guy i have read history for 13 years and not known any man such as sadasivan who can reject all the indian writings at once!!!! i guess because of heavy bias on this page the article will not be allowed to change even though the whole reputation section depends on 2 persons one is crooke and other freiteg and thats disgusting similarly the entry calls james tod as bias without any source , are they not personal comments . I may create a new section to show his past and glory and praise from world renowned historian as most of the biased and no-knowledge guy will not allow anyone to delete the whole reputation page. it should be changed to criticism then their will be some neutrality otherwise it seems that he has no reputation at all.122.162.205.86 (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that Freitag is not a reliable source, take it to WP:RSN. If not, it stays. Same for Sadasivan. As for a new section, feel free--I have actually felt that this article needs a clearer picture of how Tod has been used in India, particularly by the groups that are venerated by his writing. Of course, you'll need to use reliable sources to verify anything that you write, and if you don't, your addition will be reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

ok i am now creating new sub-topic about praise which james tod got from much well known historian at the same time i will add the status of freiteg,sadasiva and crooke that none of them are well reputed or noted historian themselves and i will ask everyone of you to extend my sub-topic.115.242.110.62 (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As you've been told many times, if you object to a source, explain clearly and carefully why it doesn't meet WP:RS. If you want, go to WP:RSN to get the input of uninvolved editors. Since several of us are asserting that Freitag is a completely acceptable RS, you need to show some evidence that xe is not. If you cannot, or are unwilling to do so, you cannot remove them from the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

the first blatant lie about james tod by some editors such as sitush , qxyrian just exposed freiteg is told to be the only historian to write bio-graphy of james tod hahahaha, do you guys know who the great historian gh ojha is even though he wrote history in Hindi he is one of the great indian historian and the only hindi writing great historian. This shows some blatant lie about james tod that freiteg wrote his only biography that useless guy wrote in post 2000 that is more than 150 years after tod death , gh ojha wrote book on tod before 1925AD . And further gh ojha is very very noted and reputed historian and not like freiteg.115.242.110.62 (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

i am not removing them from article but their own reputation and status will be shown through the article.115.242.110.62 (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

• ec)Oh, I just re-read what the two of you are saying, and I realize there's a cultural problem here that I didn't see before. You (IP & Nishikumar) asserted that only historians on Tod's level are allowed to critique him. Such a stance is common for cultures with a strong trust in tradition and received knowledge. Such a culture is not a part of Wikipedia, or, in fact, general international academia. Yes, on first pass, it's likely that deference will be given to the "famous" person; but it is not the case that the only legitimate criticism of a "high level" person is another high level person. For example, William Shakespeare, always considered one the greatest writers of English drama ever, is critiqued by scholars of all levels, and any scholar capable of being published in a peer-reviewed journal would be considered of sufficient "level" to be included in WP. Now, of course, if one new author creates a theory about Shakespeare that no one else agrees with, then we won't include that one author. With Tod, though, there are many different analysts of history who have criticized his work. That is, as far as I can tell (and as far as I've been told by more knowledgeable historians than myself), Tod is generally discredited, outside of those castes/clans/groups in India who gain a real, material benefit by promoting his work. Thus, our article must reflect that general consensus. Of course, I agree with you that we should have information about positive response to Tod, so long as that positive response isn't fringe, is in reliable sources, and is properly attributed (i.e., you can't say "Tod is generally respected," but you can say "Scholars X, Y, and Z have reported some positive aspects of Tod's historical claims."). This is one of those awkward cases where traditional Indian culture is, I think, not matching to Wikipedia culture (which is based primarily in Western academic culture); that is, you cannot make judgments about who can criticize who based on requiring a certain level of equality. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
• After ec: actually, no, you may not include information about Freitag's (et al) status here in this article. This article is about Tod, not Freitag. Again, if you think the criticism is so strong that Freitag is not an RS, make that argument in the appropriate place and we'll remove them. If not, you cannot add information about Freitag's background to try to undercut his claims. Flat out, 100% not allowed. The only thing similar you could possibly include would be if a third reliable source said something like "However, Scholar A says that Freitag's conclusion is wrong". If you include anything in this article to try to undercut Freitag's reputation in general, it will be reverted. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop! You may not add unsourced, negative claims about living people per WP:BLP. There are no exceptions to this. In fact, this is expressly forbidden that it is an exception to WP:3RR, and I can keep reverting you without restriction. I think you've made it clear that you don't understand WP:BLP, WP:V, or WP:NPOV, so you are strongly recommended to suggest changes here first. If you continue to add unsourced negative info about living people, I will protect the article--again, BLP issues are so important they are an exception to WP:INVOLVED, allowing me to act to protect the article even though I am involved in the discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I have semi-protected the article for 3 days because of the continued WP:BLP violations. Specifically, I'm referring to the negative claims abotu Freiteg and other critics of Tod, calling them "so reputed critics". The rest of the edit had other problems (calling anyone the "one of the greatest Indian Historians" is a violation of WP:NPOV, and you can't say "Someone corrected Tod's mistakes", because that assumes that that one person is the sole decider of what is or is not a mistake). Since I'm involved, I'm going to make a protection request on WP:RFPP to get independent corroboration that the problem required protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There was also removal of validly cited info. I note that the contributor actually agreed that Tod got things wrong and even cited exactly the same source, which in turn referred to the Ohja/Bal issue. According to Freitag, there really is no book-length bio of Tod other than his own, although there are 20-odd short bios which are mostly regurgitating the same info from the same sources. The contributor did say that Ohja's work is available in English - I would be pleased to take a look at it. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

yes book is available and i am back the book is in hindi and direct translation into english by another historia. Dont mind qxyrian but i have know it by now that you dont know who Gaurishankar Hirachand Ojha is and you are surely not an indian, the historian who is called Mahapayodhya(greatest of all teachers) by many of other noted historian including DR bhandarkar(one of india most noted historian and son of rg bhandrarkar) and you are saying he is not . The book is available in any good book store from India 115.241.247.223 (talk) 13:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

and about the status of gh ojha even though he is historian who writes in hindi his status is like that of any of the top 10 indian historian and you can search just type gaurishankar ojha on google books and then you will see what status that man commands no one ask any other hindi historian and gh ojha commands respect as high as any other indian historian just go and search on gbooks he died long back on 1947 which is one reason why non-history students dont know him, atleast type gaurishankar ojha name on gbooks and then you will know that by what name he is being called by other great indian historian such as kp jaiswal, dr bhandarkar. 115.241.247.223 (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I know who Ojha was. That was not my question. I often get my letters transposed hwen typing, btw. - Sitush (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.in/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=gaurishankar+hirachand+ojha&btnG=#q=gaurishankar+ojha&hl=en&tbo=1&tbm=bks&ei=xPFYTqL8MMaurAfmv5TUCg&start=30&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=884647e45455b937&biw=1366&bih=677

go through this be it harvard university or james tod later revised editions itself show the name of gh ojha, the title of mahapayodhya is given by govt of india and it means greatest of all teachers and it shows why people are afraid of hindi , ojha sir too know english very well but he wrote in hindi and still achieved great heights no historian in modern day india can take the challenge to do that and reach the same height as ojha sir.115.241.247.223 (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

one of the few historian who was punished by british govt as well for his speeches , he was not an ordinary historian who simply write history he took active part in freedom struggle was convcted many times by british govt , it was disgusting a historian of Ojha reputation whose hindu version was translated into Urdu by none other than Great Writer Prem Chand , now you will ask who is prem chand. You 3-4 guys are doing thing which is called bullying you have deleted even though i have written that Ojha has corrected tod but you ignore the main point, i will give an example try relating to it

-

einstein photoelectic effect theory was given very lately many other such as hertz and many more gave theories on photoelectric effect but many of them were given nobel prize even though lately their theory was proved partially wrong a man who starts a new topic is more prone to commit mistake and tod was the first historian of repute to write about rajasthan just as grant duff was for maratha , ojha is such a great writer that he has noted that tod mistake was geniune anyone who starts a newthing will commit mistake even if tod 30% of history was wrong then too it was great achievement in the first attempt but people like you are holding on freiteg as if he is a great historian and thats too much of an insult for both tod and ojha. Ojha has himself contradicted tod many times but he has praised tod courage to write the first official history of rajasthan.115.241.247.223 (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. I will look at it later today. You really cannot use these "greatest historian" claims, by the way. They are subjective and in any event the very nature of historical studies means that you end up comparing apples with oranges, since people specialise in various areas. It does not matter on Wikipedia what the Indian government may think about this - in common with most governments, they grant awards & titles for reasons that are not always what they appear to be on the surface. Just look at the UK honours system for evidence of that. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your admission that Tod was wrong, big time, is the reason why Tod is unreliable as a historian. We could say the same of David Irving, although for different reasons. Being a trailblazer does not make one a good historian in a subject area, merely one of the first. And, please note, he was not the first: he relied on folk history, on the puranas etc. Tod's reputation in academia is coloured by the accuracy of his pronouncements, just as happens in science. I recommend you read The structure of scientific revolutions. I think that the article already notes that he was an early historian of the region but if not then, sure, it should do. - Sitush (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have now looked at the link provided above. It goes to a Google search. I am not prepared to wander around aimlessly looking for a book by Ojha which has allegedly been translated into English. Please provide some specific information listing publications in English, written by Ojha and where he said that Tod was the greatest historian or whatever it was. I do enough digging around without adding vague assertions by others to my list of things to do. If possible, I would also like some information regarding why we should take the word of someone who was writing 80+ years ago over that of more modern commentators. There are circumstances in which such opinions are valid but you would need to demonstrate them (eg: Crooke's assertions are useful because his is the most commonly cited & re-used of all the various reprinted editions of Annals, and because he actually changed sections of that book to fix misrepresentations made by Tod). - Sitush (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference to Sitush and IP, the IP cannot respond for at least 3 days, as his latest IP address was blocked for 60 hours yesterday. Posting here again under a new IP while the other block is still running would count as block evasion and just end up with a longer block. If you eventually want to contribute constructively, wait out the block, then come back afterward. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Image gallery

The images introduced by Fowler&fowler are great but I have never been overly keen on the gallery format. It is a purely aesthetic thing from my POV, and therefore entirely subjective. Does anyone object to me reformatting these to be the standard right-hand side view (except if that would cause a portrait then to face outwards)? - Sitush (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)