Talk:Sabarna Roy Choudhury
 | A fact from Sabarna Roy Choudhury appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 July 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
Deletions
Deletios made by User:Lillycottage are unwarranted and would lead to deletion of the page. Some one wanting to improve upon the text would normally add or replace material. Merely deleting with the objective of deleting the page is an objectionable move. - Shiben Dutta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.206.149 (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Sir, mainly the dubious material from Sabarna Roy Choudhury own self serving website, and faithweb etc have been deleted by me. Kindly cite reliable sources. Lillycottage (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Madam, those references were already checked by established editors and reviewers. This document was a DYK article. And there is no unreliablity issue about the source here. This document is important for History of Calcutta and the reference mentioned here is also respectable source. Please do not remove any information from this article. Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Reverts without discussion
A User:GDibyendu has removed OR metatag. Careful reading of the article in context of references 1) "Bangiya Sabarna Katha Kalishetra Kalikatah by Bhabani Roy Choudhury, Manna Publication. ISBN-81-87648-36-8" and 2) "Sabarna Prithivi - website of the Sabarna Roy Choudhury family" on which this article substantially rests, shows it to be their own created documents. I am reinserting the OR tag and requesting for proper 3rd party and independent reliable sources and citations. Please discuss before reverting. Gayatrisavitr (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I'll change the references. But the point is that, this document does not claim anything outrageous which cannot be supported from other sources. In other words those two sources are not primary source or original-reasearch, they are just secondary ones. I'll remove these two links as references, however, as external links they are notably related with this article. Once this is done I'll remove this tag. I had a look in the list of previous editors and I appreciate your concern. Though I do not support your view about OR, since it is possible to replace these by neutral sources, I agree to do that. You can also participate in this activity, if you have any intention to make positive contribution to improve the article. Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your changes in lead section is kind of useless. It is not contrary view, it is supporting view. At the end of page 157 of Samaren Roy's book gives the date 16th November 1698, which you have conveniently modified to 1690. The level of honesty expected from an editor is higher than you have shown here. The claim was already in the previous sentence. Only thing that Samaresh Roy's book does not say in those two pages (156-157) is the name of Job Charnock's son-in-law or whosover was representing the Company. --GDibyendu (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kindly dont use abusive language like "kind of useless" concerning my edits and their quality, it is merely your opinion which you are entitled to. Similarly I opine that you have trashed a reliable well researched citation from Mr.Samaren Roy's book (he has written many scholarly books on Calcutta and Bengalees - whcih are viewable over googlebooks also). This entire article is still highly POV towards a particular branch of Sabarna Roy Choudhury family. Kindly keep in mind there are other branches of this family too, equally descended from Kamdeva Brahmachari, LakshmiKamta etc. through the male line who equally describe themselves as "Sabarna Roy Choudhury" and hold no truck with this branch (ie. the so called Parivar Parishad lot who organise the pujas). You may kindly research the following - Who is the founder of SRC family - Samaren Roy writes it is Kamadeva, the Parishad websites choose to play up Lakshmikanta. Also research who murdered Pradipaditya and his uncle. You will find Sukanta Chaudhuri's books useful, I read somewhere he is also from SRC but not from Parivar Parishad branch. Parishads' claim of 980 AD is bogus (give a reliable source) and there is no proof that they are from Vedagarbha. Lakshmikanta was the first to assume the title of Gangopadhyaya (ie. priestly Barendra Brahmin) in 17th cent. SRC was not a priestly clan till then. 1690 was a typo caused by OCR scanning mistake. Does Samaren Roy say 16th Nov or 10th Nov? As a Calcuttan / Bengali you are probably aware of the true facts of how the land was "sold" by SRC (which is better not to discuss here), let us try and resolve this in a civilised / encyclopedic manner instead of edit warring. Gayatrisavitr (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Page 8 of Samaren Roy's book clearly states who had to transfer the rights. Page 156-7 also includes "signed by zaminder". So, there is no contradiction. Every family has branches like this family and not all branches under that become equally notable (as time goes). Feel free to add info on other branches if you find them notable and from reliable sources. For History of Calcutta, current content is sufficient (anything more will be of interest to Bengalis only). Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- the "signed by zamindar" refers to 2 underaged (minor) children who executed the document. these minor children executed the deed to make it legally invalid (it was done deceitfully). The POV of this page presently is that there is / was a monolithic "Sabarna Roy Choudhury" family which did everything together from time immemorial, which is simply not true.Gayatrisavitr (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Page 8 of Samaren Roy's book clearly states who had to transfer the rights. Page 156-7 also includes "signed by zaminder". So, there is no contradiction. Every family has branches like this family and not all branches under that become equally notable (as time goes). Feel free to add info on other branches if you find them notable and from reliable sources. For History of Calcutta, current content is sufficient (anything more will be of interest to Bengalis only). Thanks. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Kindly dont use abusive language like "kind of useless" concerning my edits and their quality, it is merely your opinion which you are entitled to. Similarly I opine that you have trashed a reliable well researched citation from Mr.Samaren Roy's book (he has written many scholarly books on Calcutta and Bengalees - whcih are viewable over googlebooks also). This entire article is still highly POV towards a particular branch of Sabarna Roy Choudhury family. Kindly keep in mind there are other branches of this family too, equally descended from Kamdeva Brahmachari, LakshmiKamta etc. through the male line who equally describe themselves as "Sabarna Roy Choudhury" and hold no truck with this branch (ie. the so called Parivar Parishad lot who organise the pujas). You may kindly research the following - Who is the founder of SRC family - Samaren Roy writes it is Kamadeva, the Parishad websites choose to play up Lakshmikanta. Also research who murdered Pradipaditya and his uncle. You will find Sukanta Chaudhuri's books useful, I read somewhere he is also from SRC but not from Parivar Parishad branch. Parishads' claim of 980 AD is bogus (give a reliable source) and there is no proof that they are from Vedagarbha. Lakshmikanta was the first to assume the title of Gangopadhyaya (ie. priestly Barendra Brahmin) in 17th cent. SRC was not a priestly clan till then. 1690 was a typo caused by OCR scanning mistake. Does Samaren Roy say 16th Nov or 10th Nov? As a Calcuttan / Bengali you are probably aware of the true facts of how the land was "sold" by SRC (which is better not to discuss here), let us try and resolve this in a civilised / encyclopedic manner instead of edit warring. Gayatrisavitr (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Your changes in lead section is kind of useless. It is not contrary view, it is supporting view. At the end of page 157 of Samaren Roy's book gives the date 16th November 1698, which you have conveniently modified to 1690. The level of honesty expected from an editor is higher than you have shown here. The claim was already in the previous sentence. Only thing that Samaresh Roy's book does not say in those two pages (156-157) is the name of Job Charnock's son-in-law or whosover was representing the Company. --GDibyendu (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)