Talk:Unnao gold treasure incident

Dream or fact

This article may be include soon in template: superstitions. Namo says Goverment starts digging after someone dreamt. I think its not the dream what kalam said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.107.175.156 (talk) 05:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Should the place or incident be the subject of this article?

Daundiya Kheda, Uttar Pradesh is still going to be there when Unnao gold treasure incident stops being news. Just my ₹ 0.02. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It is in worldwide news because of this incident. I was confused what name to give to article. Then found that almost every news source is including 'Unnao gold' or 'Unnao treasure' in headline instead of 'Daundia Khera'. So I chose that title. But I am slowly learning about ancient importance of this village and I think village deserve separate article. Abhi (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sections: Grouping the info

Sections are created to group relevant info.

• Rao Ram Baksh Singh is part of 'History of Daundia Khera', so I moved info about him in that section.

• The worldwide media coverage started only when ASI actually started digging site on 18 October. Info prior to it should go to 'Background' section.

• I searched news. Not a single news source is using word 'controversy' to stake in treasure by king's descendent. That info should go to 'Development' section.

• 'Excavation' section should be there as all focus is on it. Slowly info would come and it can be added there.

• Lateron 'Reactions' or 'Media coverage' section should be added to group info about reactions of different notable persons and media houses. Abhi (talk) 07:31, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup

the lower 3/4 of the article is still full of statements like "He was rich landlord and a gold trader" which are not proper English. I have restored the cleanup tag on this basis. μηδείς (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I have major problem with 'a, an, the'. I will cleanup article after adding some more info. Abhi (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Just reverted your edit. I will look at the grammar, prose as after few days I am going to nominate the article for GA review. Pls don't get restless. Thanks. Abhi (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

19th century

This edit is not only bad English, it's garbled synthesis. This article is not about who founded the town. It's being in the text will prevent the DYK nomination from passing. I suggest the editor adding this material do so on the talk page before causing problems with the article. Reverting to prior ungrammatical sentences that have been corrected and removing tags is irresponsible editing. Adding substandard material and telling someone else to fix it is not only against policy--it's rude. μηδείς (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A? I am writing almost whole article. You came, fixed some grammar. I had to rearrange section because I was adding more info. It removed some of your corrections. So you got angry? For the moment, adding content is also important. I won't tolerate removal of contents just to fix missing 'a' or 'the'. You have already tagged article for cleanup and I am not objecting. Article is just 3 days old, I am lone contributor and english is my second language. Initially mistakes are bound to happen. Thanks. Abhi (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

First, the article does not belong to you. See Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, which is a policy. Second, simply edit carefully, and add the information you want without reversing the grammar corrections I made and have pointed out to you. (I assume you editted an old version to add what you did, without seeing that I had fixed that section to correct about a dozen bad grammatical errors.) If you simply add new material without deleting the corrections I made, I will gladly check your new edits and fix them to proper English. You will notice that I am not interested in fighting with you about facts--just making the article readable and up to proper standards. The fact that you are writing the article is good and commendable. Please work with others like myself who want to help you improve it too. μηδείς (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Title

When the name of an article is the name of a natural thing, like fish, we use it in bold in the title. But when an article has a name we give it, we don't force the name into the title. We don't say an incident refers to an event. Titles refer to events. Incidents just happen, they don't refer to anything. In this case no bold title is used or desired. See WP:BOLDTITLE. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

MOS is a guideline, not policy. It says, inter alia, that If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. No distortion was necessary here, the article seems to relate to the treasure incident and, which is worse, your changes screw up the grammatical structure and make a fact out of what can only be a claim (he said he dreamed; we'll never know if he really did and the sources reflect this).

Having said all the above, I'd be quite happy if the article was placed under the village name (whichever one is preferred by the district's government). You'll likely find more significant problems than MOS issues if you start digging through sources, in particular given the nature of the Indian press and of Raj sources. - Sitush (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There is also the possibility of saying something like "The Unnao gold treasure incident began on 17 October, 2013, when local seer Sarkar..." That at least won't have us saying the incident refers to an event, which is indeed a distortion. (Our article is not about the title of our article: incidents happen, they don't refer; people and words refer.) The real issue is that our title is an artificial construct. There seems to be a side issue of the village ersus the treasure, and a lot of the material in the article would seem better removed to a separate article on the town without regard to the supposed treasure. I hink a better solution regarding the story of the treasure and not the town would be something like "The Unnao hoard was a buried treasure of gold supposed to exist by a seer who told Indian government officials he learnt of it in a dream, prompting an archaeologial dig...." In the meantime, we should strictly avoid the deprecated "the incident refers to the event" formulation. μηδείς (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent removal of 1857-related event

I've just removed this 1857-related event. It is sourced to The Times of India (quite frequently referred to on WP as The Toiletpaper of India (!)). The ToI in turn is referring to an obscure book written by a seemingly equally obscure local historian.

There were many minor events during the 1857 rebellion and, of course, there were many local rulers, a decent few of whom took pseudo-royal titles/self-identified as royalty etc (a practice that still goes on today). The event in question has only a tangential relationship to the village and the royal who is named appears to be a minor among the minors. Of course, 1857 was a significant event and there is a tendency for people to try to get some reflected glory from it, just as they do with interminable arguments concerning the caste of A, B or C. I'd happily see the info reinstated in some form if it can be shown that the event has been covered by one of the many decent books that cover 1857, and that it had something more than a "someone hid in my village" significance, but I'm pretty sure that it is not. - Sitush (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That 1862 description of fort by Cunningham deserve mention in the village history. Also 2-3 lines about Rao Ram Baksh Singh. Because it is 'treasure' site and it was his fort. Abhi (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It is difficult to determine from the news sources whether it is the palace, the temple or somewhere else. As is common, the sources are nigh-on useless. For example, India Today refers to an "ancient temple" that is built on the ruins of the palace and that the palace was destroyed sometime on or after 1857. Aside form the obvious - 150 years is not "ancient" even in Indian English - IT then says that the temple is "adjoining" the palace (rather than on top of it), and says that the minister heard it first from the swami and first from a pandit in Kanpur. Worse still, they say that the ASI drilled holes at a point indicated to them by the swami but that (even though the ASI allegedly went there because of him) they'd initially ignored him and had been unsuccessful because the site covers something like 60 acres. And Cunningham says that the fort was 385 feet square, which is not even one acre. It is hopeless stuff. - Sitush (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am sympathetic with Abhi's desire that the information be retained. But I think what's really needed is a separation of this into two articles, one on the dream hoard, and the other on the town. I have no comment as to the quality of the sources. μηδείς (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If it was not for the fact that the ASI itself has a dubious reputation, I'd suggest that we wait for their official report. However, the ASI is dubious, has long been so and is often politicised also. As an example of their recent misstatements (assuming that they have been quoted correctly), our Times of India sources says "He added that the first director-general of ASI Alexander Cunningham had in a report in 1862 indicated the historical significance of Daundia Khera identifying it with Hayamukha.". Cunningham said no such thing, either in 1862 or in later editions of his book. It is sloppy history and sloppy archaeology, not to mention an attempt to rely on someone who is known not to be reliable. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Medeis, unless we can sort out the sources it is difficult to sympathise with anything. FWIW, the king does get a mention in the article - he was hanged in 1857 and his palace was destroyed - but beyond that there really is nothing of note to be said. Vast swathes of India-related "sources" are little more than pov-pushed (semi-)fictional concoctions, plagiarism, misrepresentation etc. I'm not sure if you are familiar with India-related topics and, in particular, the sourcing issues related to them but hopefully, some experienced bods will turn up before too long, given Abhi's recent appeal at WT:INB. - Sitush (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I am familiar with the huge problem of (out-of-)India(n) nationalist pseudoscientific linguistic and archaeological "theories". I have no personal concern here that specific material be included or excluded. (I am an inclusionist in regards to verifiable material.) My interest in this article is mainly in form, not substance, since I became involved with its problems when it was nominated for ITN. I'll just repeat I think it would be hugely beneficial to separate out one article on the treasure and another on the town. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not verifiability but reliability. Out-of-India stuff is only the tip of the iceberg. - Sitush (talk) 03:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Rename

The current title is pretty clunky ("gold treasure"?) and it is unclear what the "incident" exactlyrefers to (the dream? the GSI survey? the excavation?). How about ranaming it to "Unnao gold hunt" as per the cited India Today article. Other suggestions welcome, especially if the Indian press has already given the farce a catchy title. Abecedare (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Simplicity is best. I think we need two separate out an article on the town and one on the treasure. These should be Unnao and something like Unnao treasure or Unnao horde or even Unnao hoax Unfortunately it will be a while before the last is confirmed, but a future change could happen. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

100% Agreed with abecedare, this should be made "Unnao gold hunt". Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

'Unnao gold hunt' conveys the meaning that gold really exists in Unnao and ASI is 'hunting' for it. 'Unnao gold hoax' is also inappropriate because 'hoax' is not proved. Even if no gold comes out of this excavation, still it can't be called hoax because ASI is maintaining that it is excavating for artefacts, not gold. It is just an incident or event fanned by media circus. Abhi (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Articles about Unnao and Unnao district are already there. This incident is happening in small village 'Daundia Khera'. But almost all media is referring it 'Unnao gold' or 'Unnao treasure' in headlines because Unnao is big city, administrative place and people can readily identify where event is happening in India. Now Daundia Khera may deserve article but I am confused what to write there. Except location and population, absolutely no modern day details are available. And ancient history is also too little. Perhaps I will be able to stretch that article for one or two more paragraphs with that '19th century' info (which is now removed from this article). I can't find info. Other users can always create article about Daundia Khera if they think they can add some more info. But for ready reference of reader, this article deserve some village/site history. And Sitush has edited it properly. It should be there. Abhi (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Reaction

Sounds more like criticism, since all of those critics/comments sounds absurd compared to the research of Geological Survey of India. I think, such section can be removed. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Basically this incident is in news because of criticism. GOI issued statement because of criticism. GOI/GSI side is given in 'Development' section at the beginning. Also quote of ASI director is given in quote box prominantly. We can't remove criticism and present only one side. I will search and add reaction of prominent GOI official or Congress leader. Abhi (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)