Talk:Umed Singh

Untitled

nice 2 see article abt rawal shahib umed singh ji

Honorific titles such as "ji" should be avoided while writing an article. The article needs improvisation in grammar and punctuation. Finemann (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Please can someone explain why the photo in this article should remain. The conversation here may be of interest. - Sitush (talk) 11:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've worked it out. The photo is not of the subject covered by this article but rather of his adopted "successor", Rawat Tribhuwan Singh Rathore. I am removing as it is irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well this pic is from the same family so i think it should remains here. n i am not getting why are you removing topic family and the coronation part from it and for reference we can add a video which is available at you tube — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhimanyu singh rathore (talk • contribs) 06:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The article concerns a person, not a family. That photograph was very misleading. If you want to have an article for his successor then I suggest you go create one; however, please bear in mind that the only reason this article has not been deleted is because its subject was a state-level politician - if he had just been ex-royalty then he would not be notable. This article is very poor and creating more of the same is not a good idea. Just because someone thinks the guy is great does not mean they deserve an article on Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok i understand what you want to say - Abhimanyu singh rathore —Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Successor

The title and role of this family was formally ended by the government of India which, of course, serves a republic. This happened during the lifetime of the subject of this article and therefore any supposed "successor" to his title is in fact a "mere" son. That some people may choose to refer to the son by use of the title is entirely up to them but he cannot be a pretender to an institution that no longer exists. I have amended the article accordingly. The title is vanity: although this can be (and is) mentioned in the article, he cannot be termed a successor. - Sitush (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Barmer was not a princely state at all, only a town in Mallani District in the princely state of Jodhpur. There were 18 princely states in the Rajputana agency and two chieftaincies, a total of 20. (See for example Imperial Gazetteer of India, volume 21, page 83, also see here for a list of all 20.) It seems that Barmer was also the name of an estate in Mallani District, consisting of 65 villages, owned by five families, who paid between them an annual tribute of Rupees 1,000 to the ruler of Jodhpur State. There is no question of Barmer receiving any privy purse after 1947. It wasn't a princely state. This is a good candidate for AfD. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out the false "Barmer" in the name. As for the Rathore, that too might be false, as the legislative assembly tables put out by the government of India show him as simply "Umed Singh." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There were 176 constituencies in Rajasthan in 1962 and a full 200 in 1985. Whether or not the gentleman is notable, will have to be determined on the basis of WP:RS. The fact of being an MLA is not inherently notable, given the numbers for one state alone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

He was MLA three times, not two. His name in all three legislative records is "Umed Singh." Per WP policy, I have changed the name to "Umed Singh." All the references to "Umed Singh Rathore" (and longer titles) are clones of the old WP page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I was intending to come back and do a big clean up but you've beaten me to it. Thanks for that. I think MLAs are inherently notable per WP:NPOL. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)