Talk:Bhurshut

Good work

Bhurshut and 117.254.242.109 (I presume both are same) have done a good job in expanding this page. There is need for a page on History of Howrah district, possibly along the lines of History of Bankura district. The Editor could do some good work on that also. However, some questions have come up in my mind. I shall be grateful if these could be addressed.

1. The intro says: “It maintained sovereignty for a large part of its history (except nominal suzerainty to Delhi Sultans for few years during early Muslim rule of India) from almost 600 B.C to 1712 A.D.” Does it mean that the area was independent of such mighty empires as Maurya Empire, Gupta Empire, Pala Empire, and Sena dynasty ? If so, it needs to be properly referenced. If not, the intro needs to be modified. 2. There is a long portion on Bhurshut temples. Rajbalhat is understandable but not the others. Antpur is in the area covered by the Bhurshut kingdom, but the Bhurshut kings don’t seem to have a role there. Similalrly, the temples at Tarakeswar, Balagarh, Guptipara and Bansberia – how are these linked with Bhurshut kingdom? What links the Amta and Ramrajatala temples to Bhurshut? Unless the links are explained, the material seems to be superfluous for the page and perhaps needs to be shifted appropriately to the relevant pages.

3. The portion about Vijay Singha seems to be more appropriate for the Singur page than the Bhursut page.

All the same please keep up the good work.

- Chandan Guha (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Pala and Sena were Bengali dynasties and by sovereignty I did not mean independence of a single family but the region as a whole which maintained freedom from neighbouring empires. No Gupta or Maurya archeological ruins or artifacts have ever been discovered from this region.

2. All the mentioned temples fall in the area of Bhurshut and the Chandi temples of Amta specially were patroned by the royals of Bhurshut as mentioned in Bharatchandra's writings.

3. Vijaya Singha's Kingdom was in same area as that of Bhurshut and the area maintained historical continuity.

Thank you. - Bhurshut 15:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideally, historical continuity should be established with proper references. A place being in the geographical area of a former kingdom does not mean it is linked to that kingdom. Amta is okay, as explained. How are the others linked? I think Furfura Sharif is also in the geographical area of Bhurshut, should it also be incleded here? - Chandan Guha (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems

This article has copyright problems that may be pervasive; I'm afraid it needs considerable work. In addition to the section already recognized, content seems to have been copied from books. For instance, the article says:

At Pedo Basantapur the reduced circumstances of this ancient royal family of Bhurshut aroused sympathy of the Rajas of Burdwan, now their relatives who gave rent free estates to them at Bansberia (near Kolkata) and several places of Burdwan and Nadia districts. However, after Kiritchandra’s death in 1740 the Burdwan Zamindari confiscated parts of these lands to west of River Ganga mainly of Narendra Narayuan Ray of Basantapur the father of Bharatchandra Ray, ‘Raygunakar’, 18th century Bengali poet, who went to his estate in Nadia under Raja Krishnachandra of Krishnanagar.

The books says:

At Basantpur, the reduced circumstances of the family apparently aroused the sympathy of the Rajas of Burdwan, Bansberia and Nadia, who each gave the family rent-free lands. However, after Kiritchandra’s death in 1740, the Burdwan Zamindari confiscated most of the remaining lands of Narendra Narayuan Ray of Basantapur, who was the the father of the poet Bharatchandra.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. Aside from brief clearly marked excerpts (in accordance with non-free content policy and guideline), material derived from non-free sources must be completely written in original language.

So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten in the temporary space that is now linked from the article's front. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Additionally, I see that a good bit of material has been copied from other Wikipedia articles. These, too, are not public domain, but their use is a little simpler. Content can be copied, but credit has to be given to the original authors in the manner described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

Please let me know if you have questions about this. If the article is not rewritten in the temporary space, it will unfortunately need to be restored to the last version before the influx of this content, [1]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And immediately upon unprotection, not only do we get content copied again from other articles but also pasted from a 2005 article in the Telegraph. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Title

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Bhurshut → Bhurishrestha – The title of the article should be Bhurishrestha rather than Bhursut, because during its time it was recognized as Bhurishrestha. Bhursut is a corruption of Bhurishrestha that gained currency in British period. At present, Bhursut is only a village in Howrah district. The present day Bhursut and the medieval Bhurishrestha are not the same. Therefore the title should Bhurishrestha rather than Bhursut. BengaliHindu (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia's manual of style says that, other things being equal, we should use the name most commonly recognised today in English. Whether that is the same as the name most commonly recognised in the place concerned at the time it was prominent or not is irrelevant. Thus, for example, we have an article on Ancient Rome, not on ROMA ANTIQVA, nor even Roma Antiqua. Likewise, we have an article on Germany, not one on Deutschland. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose all 50x GB English sources spell Bhurshut - per ভুরশুট Bhurasuta in article lede - only Ānandamūrti p310 even mentions that is was once called Bhurishrestha. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing titles

Can someone with administration rights change the title of the article ? The name is an Language translation error , and should instead be "Vursut" . Bukhara (Kingdom of Bukhara) (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)