Talk:Tipu Sultan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tyrant[edit]

Tipu was a tyrant and religious bigot. His atrocities and persecution of Hindus and Christians in Malabar, Karnataka (Coorg) and Tamil Nadu wee well documented. He was a Southern version of Aurangazeb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.179.4 (talk) 12:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV issue[edit]

  1. My recent edit which I did following WP:NPOV policy has been reverted without giving any proper reason, only reason given was Original wording was better (some claim isn't good), which is not fair enough reason. Article more sound like "anti-Tipu" when there are sufficient reliable sources which claim that "Tipu was secular leader". We should mention both claims. Because there are also reliable claims for his act of "religious bigotry". Both claims should be mentioned in lead. (Not only one). --Human3015TALK  09:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. "Tipu is regarded as hero in Pakistan" lacks source and seems POV.
  2. "The Karnataka Government has been lately trying to portray Tipu Sultan as a State Hero" is WP:UNDUE to mention in lead and Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Also this sentence is original research which indirectly says "Tipu is not hero but Karnataka government is trying to make him hero".--Human3015TALK  10:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This doesn't need an NPOV tag Human3015. My reversion was mostly because of the way the statement was framed (some claim is not a good way to phrase things). Either way, that part of the lead is way too detailed. A statement about the contrasting views of Tipu Sultan is likely more than enough. Agree completely about the two points you've raised above. --regentspark (comment) 01:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Faith in Astrology[edit]

As the combined forces of the British, the Nizam and the Marathas opposed Srirangapatanam, Tipu Sultan developed faith in astrological predictions which foretold a malefic period for him from 1790 onwards. Upon the advice of local Brahmin astrologers, Tipu offered pujas and carried out feeding of Brahmins and advanced land-grants to temples, especially after his defeat of 1791 and the subsequent Srirangapatanam Treaty of 1792.

Reference: 1. Life of Raja Kesavadas by V.R. Parameswaran Pillai, N.B.S. Publications, Kottayam, Kerala, 1973 [Book]

2. To be ascertained: Tipu and astrology references in Lewis Rice's Epigraphia Carnatica

http://www.archive.org/details/epigraphiacarnat04mysouoft 

(this will require several hours of study)

3. Or the book History of Mysore by Lewis Rice (which sources from the voluminous Epigraphia Carnatica).

Enter2n1 (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Wrong fact about Tipu Sultan[edit]

Dear Sir,

There is wrong fact mentioned on wikipedia that Tipu sultan has forcefully converted 200 Brahmins to Islam, No such evidence is present in Gazette of Maysore or British India Library, Kindly delete this information from your website with immediate effect, Your prompt reply on this matter will be highly appreciated Amjad.siddiqui1984 (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wrong fact mentioned on wikipdia: Calicut (Kozhikode)

In 1788, Tipu ordered his governor in Calicut Sher Khan to begin the process of converting Hindus to Islam, and in July of that year, 200 Brahmins were forcibly converted.[48]

Why should we remove it? It is cited to what appears to be a reputable source. Magic♪piano 16:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Whitewashed[edit]

@Sitush and Utcursch: it looks like this article has been whitewashed to make Tipu look like a hero. Can we at least have a link to persecution of Hindus by Tipu Sultan in this article (I could not do it myself due to it being protected)?-IvankaTr (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC) IvankaTr (talk) 04:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

please also mention the protests by Hindus to the celebration of the Tippu Jayanthi by the Congress Government of Karnataka on 10th November citing appropriate references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IvankaTr (talkcontribs)
@IvankaTr: I am busy with other things right now, but dropping a note at WT:IND may help. utcursch | talk 01:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
@IvankaTr: thank you for bringing it up. I have edited some of the article and will look more. Capitals00 (talk) 07:00, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
FYI, Estefania Wenger is just a journalist that writes biographies of people, is not an historian, has no specialization in this area or time period and is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Source replaced with other multiple sources. Capitals00 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Maestro2016: your edits are contrary to the unanimous consensus about Tipu. Your sources are really weak, "Review of The History of Tipu Sultan by Mohibbul Hasan (1953)", Hasan published that book through Bibliophile publishers, a children book publisher, not WP:RS. Then a source from Irfran Habib, and last one is a chapter from Subbaraya Chetty written with Irfan Habib and found in Habib's book "Confronting Colonialism". So that means @Geunineart: objections are correct. These sources have already got a place in sections, which is already enough, don't push them on lead. Also he didn't persecuted people just because he thought they are aligned with British. Capitals00 (talk) 14:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
There is no "unanimous consensus" about Tipu. The topic is still debated by historians. The article itself names a number of historians (such as Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib, and Saletare) who conclude British accounts of Tipu to either be unreliable or fabricated. The lead also completely contradicts the very source it is citing, Binita Mehta, who specifically says that Tipu's persecutions were politically-motivated, targeting communities he suspected of helping his British enemies. The lead as it is currently written is a complete misrepresentation of Mehta. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, Mohibbul Hasan and Irfan Habib are leading Indian historians, who have had a number of historical scholarly works published by the likes of Oxford University Press. In the former case, the source actually cited is C.C. Davies writing for The English Historical Review, a reliable journal. Also, the other sources I cited (which you and Geunineart reverted) are all reliable, including Parthasarathi Prasannan (published by Cambridge University Press), Binita Mehta (who the article grossly misrepresents, as mentioned above), and B. N. Pande (published by University of Michigan). On the other hand, the source that the lead currently cites, Alexander Varghese, is published by Atlantic Publishers, which does not appear to be an academic publisher. The sources I cited are definitely more reliable than the Varghese source cited. And the other source cited in the lead, Mehta, is grossly misrepresented. Also, neither source uses the term "atrocities", but both use "persecution", while Varghese describes it as "atrocious persecution". The use of the term "atrocities" is also a complete misrepresentation of both sources. That sentence in the lead is poorly written and grossly misrepresents the sources, not to mention strongly POV and lacking neutrality, so it clearly needs to be re-written in a more neutral manner. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No they are not leading historians. How about those who don't ever doubt British accounts? There were also French, Indian, Portuguese and Dutch accounts. Still there is no specific rejection of the atrocities from anyone. A minority of writers say that he may haven't carried out that many atrocities but they don't reject the atrocities as non-existing. Where as you are simply rejecting them. I have changed the source. You don't have to exactly copy paste what source say, "atrocities" is a fine word, that covers forced conversions, killings, etc. you can find many sources if you want that word to be stated. Capitals00 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of reliable sources that refer to Irfan Habib as a leading historian of the period. I didn't reject the accounts altogether, but was attempting to give a more balanced view on the issue. A number of historians say many of these accounts come from British sources deemed unreliable, and other historians say his persecutions were targeted against specific communities who he suspected of supporting his enemies, which you outright rejected. The existence of some non-British accounts does not negate the unreliability of the British accounts. And the latter explains why he supported certain religious communities (such as the 156 Hindu temples he paid regular endowments to) while targeting other religious communities (which he deemed a threat to his rule, including several Muslim communities). The issue is complex and debatable, not so simplistic like you are portraying it. And finally, the term "atrocities" is a loaded word, just like terms such as "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing". Loaded words such as these should only be used if the sources specifically describe them as such. In this case, the cited sources use the word "persecution". Maestro2016 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Can we make it absolutely clear that there is no evidence that British accounts are unreliable just that a handful of modern historians feel that they might be. This is not the same as "British accounts are unreliable", which is what you appear to be saying. Furthermore, we ought to say that those historians/authors have a vested interest in portraying British accounts in that way (in the same way that we have said the British might have had a reason to portray Tipu in a less favourable light). Also, If we are going to rubbish British accounts, should we not say that Tipu's cruelty and violent temper was recorded in French, German, and Portuguese accounts.
For example, François Ripaud, a French soldier and ally of Tipu, wrote of the atrocities he witnessed in Calicut, "Most of the Hindu men and women were hanged...first mothers were hanged with their children tied to their necks. That barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces. Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forced to marry Mohammedans, and similarly, their men (after conversion to Islam) were forced to marry Mohammedan women. Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately."
This story was corroborated by Fra Bartholomew, a famous Portuguese missionary and traveller, in his book, Voyage to East Indies.
Ripaud also writes how, in Kozhikode, "Over 2,000 Brahmin families perished as a result of Tipu Sultan's Islamic cruelties. He did not spare even women and children". A German missionary (Guntest?) of the same incident, wrote, "Accompanied by an army of 60,000, Tipu Sultan came to Kozhikode in 1788 and razed it to the ground. It is not possible even to describe the brutalities committed by that Islamic barbarian from Mysore". Should these things not be added to the article also?--Ykraps (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
The article should reflect the secondary sources of modern historians who have researched the primary sources, not our own original research interpretations of the primary sources. It's not up to us to determine whether the British accounts are reliable or unreliable, but that's up to modern historians to determine. And from the historians I've seen, more seem to lean towards British accounts being unreliable. That's not to say anything about the French or Portuguese accounts (which I wasn't aware of until recently), but they do not negate what historians are saying about the British sources, which should be viewed with caution. As for the French and Portuguese sources, they are mentioned in the article, but the source they cite is a political journalist, rather than an academic historian, so they might need some better sourcing. Maestro2016 (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
That the article should reflect the secondary sources of modern historians, is your opinion. There is no policy which says so. Modern historians are no more reliable than ancient ones, whose opinions are equally valid. However, there are modern secondary sources available including: TipuSultan- The Tyrant of Mysore By Sandeep Balakrishna [[1]], The Naked Mughals By Vashi Sharma [[2]] and Tipu Sultan: Villain Or Hero? - an analogy by Sita Ram Goel [[3]]. You might also try reading articles by Francois Gautier. The fact that you haven't heard any of this before goes some way to explaining your point of view editing which I hitherto had assumed was politically motivated.--Ykraps (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The reason we prefer to use only modern historians is because if there is anything meaningful (significant) said by earlier historians, it will be referenced and used by a modern one. Also, modern historiography is more reliable because it has been vetted by the peer review process. FYI and not a comment on your edits.--regentspark (comment) 13:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I understand how, in some situations, newer sources are more desirable, but WP:AGE MATTERS also says, "With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing". Using a mixture of sources seems to me, the best solution.--Ykraps (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the guideline. In most (not some) situations, newer sources are desirable. As the guideline goes on to say However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.. This is particularly true when dealing with vintage primary sources. For example, you use a quotation from, amongst others, a German missionary and a Portuguese priest. These would be examples of old sources that should either not be used or used only when supported by modern academic sources. Clearly, if the priest and missionary were reliable and correct about Tipu Sultan, then modern histories would quote them or use them to bolster their own academic interpretations of the history of that period. If modern histories are silent on the sayings of these people, then we should be silent as well. --regentspark (comment) 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Maestro2016 only you seem to be worried about it, bar none. Reviewing the history of this article, I have found that the last edit made in 8 August 2017[4] shows article was neutral until you started to edit it.[5] And this section is dedicated to such "whitewashing" of article, though it took you really long to join the discussion. You should just read Mysorean invasion of Kerala. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
@Ykraps: As per WP:HISTRH, recent scholarship should take priority over older scholarship. Here is a message that User:Utcursch sent me before regarding this: Colonial-era history textbooks are obsolete: you should avoid using them as sources, wherever newer scholarly work is available. In other words, it is best to avoid using colonial-era sources if newer sources are available. As for the modern references you cited, none of them seem to be published by known academic publishers, so they don't look reliable to me. Maestro2016 (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks guys for understanding the issue. Maestro2016 doesn't understand or rejects factual basis because his agenda is to cover up Tipu Sultan, about the crimes he himself boasted, by using sources of Islamic sympathisers, one of his source is 63 years old, but he wants to talks about recent scholarship. But I will show it and hopefully others will agree that [6](p.324-326 at least) [7][8][9] and lots of many other recent books by academics/scholars have great basis and they have discussed crimes of Tipu in great lengths. Not just respected British scholars, but there were many Portuguese sources. One of them wrote:
"The barbarian Tipu Sultan tied the naked Christians and Hindus to the legs of elephants and made the elephants to move around till the bodies of the helpless victims were torn to pieces Temples and churches were ordered to be burned down, desecrated and destroyed. Christian and Hindu women were forced to marry Mohammadans and similarly their men were forced to marry Mohammadan women. Those Christians who refused to be honoured with Islam, were ordered to be killed by hanging immediately. These atrocities were told to me by the victims of Tipu Sultan who escaped from the clutches of his army and reached Varappuzha, which is the centre of Carmichael Christian Mission. I myself helped many victims to cross the Varappuzha River by boats."
This analysis is also published on this another[10] recent scholarly book. Geunineart (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
As already said above, I was not aware of French/Portuguese accounts until recently, but was only referring to colonial British accounts. As for modern historians, regardless of whether you believe them to be Islamic/Hindu/Christian/Marxist sympathizers, that is irrelevant to their academic credentials. On Google Scholar, the 2005 edition of Mohibbul Hasan's History of Tipu Sultan is the most widely cited work on Tipu Sultan (79 scholarly citations), followed by Kate Brittlebank's Tipu Sultan's search for legitimacy: Islam and kingship in a Hindu domain (1997, 62 scholarly citations), [11][12] and then Irfan Habib's Confronting colonialism: Resistance and modernization under Haidar Ali & Tipu Sultan (2002, 34 scholarly citations). Regardless of your views on these historians, these are the most widely cited scholarly works on Tipu Sultan (according to Google Scholar). As for the Portuguese account you quoted, the historian you cited, Charles Allen, describes it as "hearsay". Maestro2016 (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I think it might be best to follow the example of Enyclopedia Britannica, which states:
"Tippu was an able general and administrator, and, though a Muslim, he retained the loyalty of his Hindu subjects. He proved cruel to his enemies and lacked the judgment of his father, however."
Maestro2016 (talk)
Brilliant! With the exception of eye-witness accounts, which you aim to discredit, the whole of history is hearsay. Yes he heard it, he heard it from the people fleeing Tipu and his soldiers. This hearsay of Bartholomew's nicely corroborates the testimony of Ripaud, a man who spoke a different language and whom he'd never met. I think it best we present a balanced article with a neutral point of view, rather than offer an opinion like the Encyclopaedia Britannica. --Ykraps (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm merely pointing out the fact that the secondary source (historian) cited in this case (Chales Allen) doubts the reliability of the account. As per WP:SECONDARY, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." You cannot simply interpret primary sources yourself, but they need to be subject to analysis/research/interpretation from reliable secondary sources (i.e. academic historians). And as per WP:TERTIARY, "Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias" and "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In other words, Britannica is an ideal source for an overview/summary. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do you think he doubts it? Describing something as hearsay can simply mean, "Of the nature of or based on report given by others" - The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. p. 705. ISBN 978 0550 10289 8.  Ykraps
"I'm merely pointing out the fact" you are not pointing out any facts but trying to do some nitpicking. Charles Allen has himself greatly detailed those crimes. You ignored the recent reliable scholars I provided but doubting a single quote without a good reason. You are just throwing mud thinking that it would stick. Also I am opposed to your Britannica source and information, because they admittedly get their information wrong often. Geunineart (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
However Charles Allen may have interpreted the quote, that's how it should be written. If not word-for-word, then at least something equivalent, such as either "hearsay" or "is said to have" or "he was told by so and so". As for Britannica, it is widely recognized as a reliable source. Claiming they "get their information wrong often" is not a valid reason for rejecting a reliable source. And as mentioned above, WP:TERTIARY sources such as Britannica are "helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." In this case, Britannica is clearly neutral, mentioning both the positives and negatives regarding this issue. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Stop this copy pasta. We don't have comprehension problems like you. You don't need Britannica because we have no problem with "due weight" here. You are only mentioning something that is already established by his status, such as "He was an able general and administrator". Also read Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. Geunineart (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
That page mentions that many of the errors listed there from years ago have since already been corrected by Britannica. The fact still remains that Britannica is a reliable tertiary source. And you still haven't mentioned what issue you have with the Britannica statement. It looks accurate and neutral, and its use is consistent with Wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the secondary sources mentioned above, let us compare the number of scholarly citations (as mentioned on Google Scholar) between the sources mentioned by myself and by the opposition (Ykraps, Geunineart, Capitals00) to give us an indication of which are the more authoritative sources on the subject:
Sources mentioned by myself: Mohibbul Hasan's History of Tipu Sultan (79 citations), Kate Brittlebank's Tipu Sultan's search for legitimacy: Islam and kingship in a Hindu domain (62 citations), [13][14] Irfan Habib's Confronting colonialism: Resistance and modernization under Haidar Ali & Tipu Sultan (34 citations), Roddam Narasimha's Rockets in Mysore and Britain (13 citations), Prasannan Parthasarathi's Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence (201 citations), Binita Mehta's Widows, Pariahs, and Bayadères: India as Spectacle (32 citations).
Sources mentioned by Ykraps, Geunineart and Capitals00: Sandeep Balakrishna's Tipu Sultan: The Tyrant of Mysore (1 citation), Vashi Sharma's The Naked Mughals (0 citations), Sita Ram Goel's Tipu Sultan: Villain Or Hero? An analogy (2 citations), Kaveh Yazdani's India, Modernity and the Great Divergence: Mysore and Gujarat (1 citation), Roland Miller's Mappila Muslims of Kerala: a study in Islamic trends (68 citations), Sanjeev Sanyal's The Ocean of Churn: How the Indian Ocean Shaped Human History (2 citations), Charles Allen's Coromandel: A Personal History of South India (0 citations), Alexander Varghese's India: History, Religion, Vision and Contribution to the World (5 citations).
The above shows that almost none of the secondary sources mentioned by Ykraps, Geunineart or Capitals00 are authoritative sources on the subject (with the exception of Roland Miller's Mappila Muslims of Kerala: a study in Islamic trends), whereas all of the secondary sources I have mentioned are authoritative sources on the subject. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
First you claimed that only British accounts fabricated claims about Sultan, once it was debunked you went to claim that there is lack of recent scholarly material backing his crimes, and that it has been debunked already, and that you couldn't even understand that meaning of "hearsay", now you are talking about how many times those sources have been cited? Look, you are only becoming more disruptive by time. After giving you enough time already, now I have reverted your Britannica edits. Given that you are too biased, you would need to get consensus for any controversial edits that you want to make. Geunineart (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Strawman argument. I never "claimed that only British accounts fabricated claims about Sultan," but said that British accounts are considered either questionable/unreliable/fabricated by leading historians on the subject. Nor did I "claim that there is a lack of recent scholarly material backing his crimes," but was stating Wikipedia's policy on recent scholarship in response to Ykraps' claims concerning the use of colonial-era sources. Also, the comparison of scholarly citations is to address the issue of WP:UNDUE weight, which states, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." What you are presenting is a minority viewpoint, not the majority viewpoint. The majority viewpoint is represented by the sources with a high number of scholarly citations (such as the secondary sources I mentioned) and by tertiary sources (such as Encyclopedia Bricannica). And finally, you still have not given any kind of justification about what issue you have with Britannica's statement. You claimed they sometimes make errors, yet have failed to point out any such error concerning Britannica's statement on Tipu. Maestro2016 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me you don't like the sources that fail to fit with your point of view, and I don't understand why you're suddenly clutching at WP:UNDUE, this is not minority viewpoint. The sources you have been given look reliable to me and furthermore, I can't find any evidence that the authors you mention are anymore scholarly or better qualified to offer an opinion. You don't appear to be interested in writing a balanced article so I don't see any point in continuing this conversation.--Ykraps (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
The number of scholarly citations is representative of scholarly consensus, i.e. the majority of scholars agree with them, hence majority viewpoint. Also, explain how the following statement from Enyclopedia Britannica is not "balanced":
"Tippu was an able general and administrator, and, though a Muslim, he retained the loyalty of his Hindu subjects. He proved cruel to his enemies and lacked the judgment of his father, however."
This is a neutral statement, generally representative of scholarly consensus, yet you and Geunineart reject it without any valid reason, indicating to me that neither you nor Geunineart have any interest in neutrality. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Firstly, citing a particular source is no indication that you agree with it. Secondly, what I said about the excerpt from Britannica was that it was opinion and "opinions should not be presented as facts". The other problem with Britannica online is that it can be edited by all and sundry. Thirdly, here are some examples of your POV editing -
"The authenticity of these accounts have been debated by historians, some deeming them to either be unreliable, fabricated, or untrustworthy".[[15]]
As far as I’m aware, some authors (not all are historians) suggest that British colonial accounts may have been made up to justify their war with Tipu. You are saying that they think the accounts were definitely made up. You are also saying that all accounts of his atrocities were fabricated, but the sources only question British accounts.
Here you try to reinforce your claim that all references to the Tipu’s atrocities are made up. You also imply that only the British made such allegations but as you now know, others have also had negative things to say about him. [[16]]
Here you use a single source to say that he significantly improved the economy and living standards in Mysore[[17]] but fail to mention that others claim it was virtually bankrupt and that Tipu had squandered his wealth warring with other princely states. See for example: India for the Indians--and for England by William Digby, Indian history and culture, Volume 2 by B. S. L. Hanumantha Rao and K. Basaveswara Rao, Selections from history of Tamilnadu, 1565-1965 by K. Rajayyan, and The History and Culture of the Indian People: The Maratha supremacy by Ramesh Chandra Majumdar.
Do you have any examples of my POV editing?--Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)--Ykraps (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tipu Sultan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Gauravsarai edits[edit]

I'm reverting all the edits made by Gauravsarai because, unfortunately, they appear to be guided by their own opinions and motivations (see the edit summaries) rather than on a dispassionate reading of history. For example, Tipu Sultan's rule was like Talibani rule, warlord is a better term, Why not add all the world events here which happened during Tipu's childhood, emoving content without reference (whole of article looks biased with repeated mention of Tipu making Mysore an invincible power), looks like this article will end up giving him credit for creation of Justice league as well. This is unfortunate because some of their edits are probably good ones but, in a volunteer environment like this one, it is impossible to separate the good ones from the bad ones. I urge Gauravsarai to discuss their edits here on the talk page, get consensus, and then make changes. --regentspark (comment) 01:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes a lot of his edits were really good ones, I will find some time to restore them. But there are also other edits that are really not enough and he will have to provide reliable sources on talk page for disputing them. Geunineart (talk) 03:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)