Talk:Gahoi

Discussions with Sitush who deleted a significant part of the article

Copied from his talk page

About the text removed from Gahoi article.

I am surprized that you decided to remove mentions of inscriptions of archaeological significance. Dr. H.V. Trivedi was a distinguished epigraphist, and Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum is a publication of the ASI, a government agency in India. Dr. Kasturchand Jain Suman is a distinguished epigraphist and a linguist. Several of the inscriptions mentioned are also referred to by other respected publications. They are not unreliable sources as you claim. They are all from respected sources.

The inscriptions are the single most reliable source of information, far more reliable than any legends or follore. The 13th century inscriptions mentioned are in museums or monuments, and are very well documented.

Malaiya (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I will take another look at it. I do make mistakes. However, as a government agency - and one that, like the Anthropological Survey of India, has often been operated for substantially political reasons - the ASI is not necessarily reliable. It is also the case that we cannot just rely on the inscriptions as recorded by Trivedi etc since this would mean that we are using a primary source. We need instead to rely on interpretations of them, and show any alternative explanations etc. Alas, this is a common problem with India-related articles, although it tends to surface more with people quoting the Manu Smrti, Rig Veda, Sangam texts etc, none of which are reliable sources. - Sitush (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The texts like Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum give a discussion of the inscriptions and their significance. What makes them valuable is the fact that complete text of the inscription as well often a photograph of the inscription, carved in stone, is included. There is no stronger evidence. There is nothing political or controversial about them. They are just simple facts.

I note you say "ASI is not necessarily reliable". ASI primarily reports facts. I can't think of a more respectable organization. Do you know any?Malaiya (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Sitush has deleted most of the article along with citations. You can see the more complete version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gahoi&oldid=464483579 Malaiya (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

I would like to see translated quotations from all of the non-English sources, please. It looks to me as if many of them are not independent and therefore unlikely to be reliable anyway but let's see what shows up. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

I would like to see translated quotations from all of the non-English sources, please. It looks to me as if many of them are not independent and therefore unlikely to be reliable anyway but let's see what shows up. - Sitush (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of an important source by Sitush

Sitush has removed a text with citation with the justification "Raj era sources are not reliable".

This is the source so that you can decide. Note that:

• It was published in the journal of a prestigious society: Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, well known as the Royal Asiatic Society.
• The article was by a highly repsected professor expert in the field: Lorenz Franz Kielhorn
• The Journal was printed by Cambridge University Press.
• The article includes a photograph, with a very visible inscription.

Further:

• The statue is still in the Horniman Museum.
• You can see a magnificed image of the statue at https://www.horniman.ac.uk/collections/browse-our-collections/object/46331/page/10 Click to magnify.

Further:

• The same inscription is given in "Inscriptions of the Paramāras, Chandēllas, Kachchapaghātas, and two minor dynasties, Part III,

H. V. Trivedi, Archaeological Survey of India, 1978, p. 409"

• There are many other similar inscriptions from the same period from the same region, which are mentioned in collections of inscriptions from the region.

The article removed was:

Kielhorn, F. “On a Jain Statue in the Horniman Museum.” The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 1898, pp. 101–102. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25207937.

It is quite amazing that someone can claim that all "Raj Era sources" (what does that mean?) are unreliable. Malaiya (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)