Hello, I'm ProClasher97. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 21:40, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this was a mistake - I had sourced all the information from 22 valid sources and would like the changes to be re-instated. Currently the biography is an awful one that doesn't in the least describe this mans accomplishments and contributions. He is not Roy. Can you explain what you mean by styles ? Debussy1854 (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would require too extensive a rewrite to just reinstate. For instance, you deleted the entire introduction, and all the subsequent references would need changed from his full name to just his last name. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had updated all the references - It took me 4-5 hours today. This is terrible. I will have to redo it this week. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would the point be of just his last name - I will need to look into this further. I had several people write to me that everything on Wikipedia is nonsense and needs to be updated. It is very embarrassing. All the 22 sources had been added. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you just delete something like that without messaging me first ? This is not useful. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps changing his name to Singh Roy - this is incorrect. His name is Sir Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy. All the sources mention this. Debussy1854 (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. --VViking_TalkEdits 14:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - Can you provide a link to the manual of style description, so that I can read it. His name is Sir Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy and not Singh Roy. It should not be updated to say Singh Roy. The citations clearly state Sir Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy. Debussy1854 (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SURNAME--VViking_TalkEdits 14:49, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They say "B.P. Singh Roy" pretty regularly. The article uses "Singh Roy" to refer to "Sir Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy" the same way it might use "Doe" to refer to "John Doe." Moreover, please stop making disruptive edits - instead, seek consensus before restoring edits that appear to be contentious. Anerdw (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew,

Sir B.P. Singh Roy was B.P. Singh Roy, prior to 1933. I'm not trying to be disruptive and did not realize that editors at Wikipedia considered editing disruptive. Please send me a link to the guidelines on editing, editing information, as well as seeking consensus - I would like to review. I am also not being allowed to upload a photograph of his.

The reason these edits were made to begin with is because incorrect information and language had been noted by several readers prior. Here is an example of a Wikipedia for his peer, which is allowed much detail : Tej Bahadur Sapru

He had a key role in the negotiations with the British leading upto India's independence. This fact is important and keeps being removed.

Thank you for your patience. Debussy1854 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused as to why you think "Singh Roy" is incorrect. As VViking noted, MOS:SURNAME specifies that articles should use surnames, not full names. For example, Tej Bahadur Sapru uses "Sapru", not "Tej Bahadur Sapru", for the majority of the article.

Disruptive editing includes repeatedly reverting edits against consensus. If one of your edits gets reverted for a reason besides obvious vandalism, please don't immediately re-revert. Instead, discuss the revert on the reverter's talk page to understand their justification. That way, you can avoid an edit war and resolve the dispute way more quickly. Anerdw (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Apologies, this is my first time doing this after I was notified by readers. I kept thinking the publish button acted more of a save - will need to figure out how to edit on my end without publishing till it's fine.

I will reach out to check if it is another editor and speak directly before any future edits.

And also for the facts - He had a key role in the negotiations with the British leading up to India's independence. He collaborated with Gandhi etc and was a trusted advisor. This fact is important and keeps being removed. Someone had added that he was Sheriff of Calcutta between 1937 and 41 - this was incorrect and had been up for a long time, I believe. If you could help me understand how all this gets vetted that would be great.

I will look into drafting that differently and add it here first for consensus. 155.190.19.5 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the "Preview" template. It explains the preview feature way better than I could. Check out WP:CITE if you haven't already as well.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you.

Anerdw (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect - thank you. Will review in depth this evening. 155.190.19.5 (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anerdw - Please be advised that I have received information from the Who's Who UK archives 1960-61, Bloomsbury Publishing and will be updating this page further, using this citation. Debussy1854 (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed additional sources and added information with citations. All information has been sourced correctly. A bit on his background which is important to note as an influence as stated in the source book was moved to the end. If you have any comments or questions please message me directly to discuss before making any changes if needed.

Thank you. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you're claiming those photos as your own work? Some of them look like family snapshots. —C.Fred (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are part of my personal collection and took photos of them - they belong to me. When I uploaded it asked me is it yours with another's work in it - and that's the option that I selected. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do have other photos, but I am not sure about the copyright of those. I'm only uploading images that I own. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that clarifies. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of photos (or of any 2-D art) are not original works. The copyright remains with the original photographer. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer gave them to the family and has been dead for several decades. He is my great Uncle. Would you be able to recommend how to add these photographs. This is a difficult situation, it seems. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I own the copyright to the photographs there - no one else owns them, to clarify. I do understand your point, but in my situation, I own and have inherited the photographs - credit to the photographer has been given. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to get the copyright from someone who has been dead for several decades ? Debussy1854 (talk) 03:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I did not claim them as my own work - hence I had to upload them to wiki commons and not directly. Wiki commons asked me several questions - which I answered correctly and was allowed to upload. I suggest you review the wiki-commons guidelines.

Thank you. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tej Bahadur Sapru - take a look at his page. The editor did not take that photograph or claim it as his/her own work. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred - Please clarify where you see that I'm claiming it as my own work - I did not upload directly but through wiki-commons following all the instructions.

Also, please advise how to gain copyright of photographs that I inherited from persons who have been dead for decades upon decades. Debussy1854 (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did claim them as your own work: in the source field of the upload, you stated they are your own work. —C.Fred (talk) 10:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to the source field please ? This entire process has me confused. When i went to add images, it said if this is NOT your work, do not directly upload, but follow instructions on wiki commons. In wiki commons there was the option for work, that included the work of another - there I specifically stated the situation, mentioned credit. The photographers have been dead for decades and the photographs are my from my personal collection - no one else owns them. No one else has rights to them - in fact, they have not been viewed since WW2. 2603:7000:2100:57E2:8813:65C1:7B3B:E8AA (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that you have a family connection to the subject. I have flagged the article to alert other editors to your conflict of interest so they can review the page for neutral tone. —C.Fred (talk) 10:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine-I’ve spent over 100 hours reading first sources to just state facts, because readers had alerted me that whatever had been up for a long time was inaccurate and it was the most disgraceful page on him, when he’s such a revered figure in the community. Someone had written he was sheriff from 37 to 41 - wrong. Then unrelated information had been badly pieced together - Im not sure who had been looking at it then. I will continue to research and update. Im waiting on some sources from Cambridge University Archives. 2603:7000:2100:57E2:8813:65C1:7B3B:E8AA (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fred, Edinburgh University and Calcutta University academics are reviewing the material. I’ll be approaching an IP lawyer to discuss wikipedia’s handling of this knowledge sphere. There are several pages on asian history that are not in american or european consciousness and editors have displayed bias and neglect to check facts in the past. The inconsistent and random nature of crowd editing, and past support of incorrect facts, needs attention. Debussy1854 (talk) 11:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred - When do you think the issue will be reviewed ? I do not want that tag on there forever. No one has responded yet. An academic has reviewed it and let me know that it reads fine - a bit dry, but I told him that's Wikipedia's ruling - just to state facts for the public. I'll be adding further information once, sources are received from Cambridge University.

Also I am collecting about 200-300 newspaper clippings on the trajectory of his career from the British Library Archives. Is there a place I can upload this evidence ? Am I allowed to upload images of these clippings ? Debussy1854 (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Photo captions on Wikipedia don't usually need to clarify whether the subject is deceased. Please refrain from adding this, as you did at Bijoy Prasad Singh Roy. Thanks! CampingWithCigarettes (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok I will remove it - I became confused after C.Freds comments Debussy1854 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page - Tagore Family.

Referring to the book Women of the Tagore Household, the family tree presented here is largely incomplete and misses much information. Debussy1854 (talk) 05:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred - Please review. Debussy1854 (talk) 11:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CampingWithCigarettes - Please review. Debussy1854 (talk) 19:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anerdw - Please review Debussy1854 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Biguglyalien - The page on Tagore Family has a digitally created family tree that is both inaccurate and incomplete. Pages 514 to 619 of the Women of the Tagore Household need to be referenced as the family tree is further developed. I have added this source atop the family tree for readers. If you could review, I'd be grateful. Debussy1854 (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Biguglyalien

The original article as I had found it had this statement - Following the first India-Pakistan war, on 6 July 1950 he delivered a speech on All India Radio regarding an Indo-Pakistani agreement with this reference : "AIR,Calcutta/6.7.1950,A31nSri (Sir) Bijay Prasad Singh Roy, Ex-Minister, Bengali, and ex-President, Bengal Legislative Council, who broadcast a talk on Indo-Pakistan Agreement from the Calcutta Station of AIR on July, 17, 1950".

Now, the citation link takes me to a caption of a photograph that I cannot see.

When you have a free minute, if you could review and offer advice on this, that would be great. This is the one that I'm a little hesitant on - don't want to remove it, but it isn't clear. Debussy1854 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]