Talk:Battle of Saragarhi/Archive 2

Modified ending

Great article, have attempted to rewrite the last sentence to end the kutta like sniping over the relating of the 2 battles. if I have succeeded, perhaps the arguments could be removed. You would probably have to be a English military historian or Indian one to know of both battles. There started a battle, did you mean the battle started there, probably insignificant. Thought Maharaja was more akin to Padshah at least in the rulers mind. Thanks for my orig. welcome a verbal Maharaja Ranjit Singh pashmina shawl to you.Atmamatma 05:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A very problematic article

The claims made are fantastical (each soldier killed 281 men? even if every bullet killed an afghan, that's a lot of ammunition to be carrying), the tone is hagiographic, and the citations are... let's say "problematic". To start, a lot of the claims made here are simply not found in the sources to which they are attributed. Even quotations are sourced to internet articles that don't contain them. Also, the same references are duplicated many many times, which superficially makes the article look more verified than it really is.

Actually, your wrong, I have checked the weblinks and statements or claims made on the references and they verify and are correct--James smith2 02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This entire article seems, on first glance, to boil down to an obscure book called "Saragarhi Battalion, Ashes to Glory" by Kanwaljit Singh and H.S. Ahluwalia. I don't think we can rely on a single book for wild claims. Especially when most other citations contradict them, saying around 200 Afghans were killed, which is a much more reasonable number for 21 men defending a fortified position against a human wave. <eleland/talkedits> 17:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree the The Daily Telegraph is a highly reliable British newswpaper.

you can't take some off because you "think so". Any way The Daily Telegraph is a highly

reliable British newspaper that is over 150 old year it say they faced 10000 and killed 4800 of

them. The last thing I want here is for a :revert war to begin.--James smith2 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. First, where is any neutral reference to this obscure UNESCO document about the "8 stories of bravery"? I searched unesco.org and didn't find a spark of evidence. It sounds odd too, because the UN is about ending wars, not giving them credibility. Second, the article is far from being neutral, for example the part about the spartans:

"The main difference was that the Spartans held off the Persian Army for 3 days before falling. The Sikh saga lasted the best part of a whole day, however, the Sikhs were not expecting a battle, and they were not defending a fort, just a signalling post. Thus, the preparation was entirely different, whilst Leonidis of Sparta could prepare, the Singhs simply had to fight.�"

This isn't neutral, its totally POV, and sounds more like wartime propaganda then a quote from a true wikipedia article. Third, while i don't say that this never happened or that it wasn't a great victory, the casualties sound extremly unrealistic. Its interesting to note that while researching about this battle, i had to dig through dozens of sikh-based websites, but virtually no great military history site did even mention the battle, let alone described it as "one of the 5 greatest last stands in history".

--Kelnor 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It does appear that UNESCO published a series of articles or pamphlets about bravery, citing historical examples, and Saragarhi was one of them. But this in no way indicates that UNESCO has somehow "certified" Saragarhi as among the "top 8" notable last stands in history.

It would be nice to have access to the printed sources which are available, to better judge their reliability. The book I mentioned is 20 years out of print, though, which makes this difficult. Anyway, I'll start by agglomerating the duplicate refs, tagging particularly unlikely statements, and checking the citations to Internet sources. I will also merge in Havildar Ishar Singh since it contains absolutely no information which is not related to the battle. Gaging the significance of this battle overall will be more difficult, and will require input from other editors. <eleland/talkedits> 21:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally disagree the The Daily Telegraph is a highly reliable British newswpaper.

you can't take some off because you "think so". Any way The Daily Telegraph is a highly

reliable British newspaper that is over 150 old year it say they faced 10000 and killed 4800 of

them. The last thing I want here is for a :revert war to begin.--James smith2 01:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Will you chill out, please? And will you indent your comments consistently without making duplicates? Nobody else is threatening a revert war.

To start with, the casualty estimates on this page are a big, red, flag. 4,800 dead? Even if we assume that each defender bludgeoned or bayoneted 40 attackers to death, and that each defender required exactly one round of ammunition to kill an attacker (a ridiculous assumption; even 10 rounds would be quite low for most battles), that means that the defenders brought 4,000 rounds of ammunition to a remote and relatively minor outpost. 200 rounds per gun. Even today, armed with assault rifles which can empty 30 round magazine in under 3 seconds, soldiers do not generally carry this much ammunition.

Furthermore, many of the sources on the Internet do not offer anything near these estimates. This article picks the highest estimate and sticks to it despite all reason, ignoring reasonable numbers like 200 or 400 attackers killed. Yeah, the linked Telegraph article says 4,800. Do you know how often such articles are found to have cribbed from Wikipedia, or other non-reliable sources? I've looked, and I can't find a single academic historical source which gives such a number. I think it is summed up by this Google Answers post, where somebody asks for credible academic sources on the battle, and is directed to... this Wikipedia article, and a host of self published Sikh nationalist websites. Another poster points out that, "The fact that the linked texts are almost identical in content and language suggests a

single source." Indeed!

What's worse, the tone of this article is completely inappropriate. No neutral article says things like "the great leader becomes a martyr" or "These twenty one brave Sikhs knew, as had the brave Spartans, that they were facing certain death, but fought regardless, never retreating, never surrendering". It's written as a persuasive essay designed to convince the reader that Sikhs are the greatest warriors ever, Saragarhi was the best battle ever, Sikhs are better fighters than Spartans (or just white people generally?), etc. It's embarrassing.

Finally, we cap it off with a purely original research section devoted to some kind of line-by-line comparison to Thermopylae, complete with dubiously interpreted tables of casualty ratios and the like. This analysis appears to exist nowhere but Wikipedia, and what's more, it's carefully designed to minimize Thermopylae in comparison, so the Sikh defenders look even more god-like.

In summary, this article appears to be fall-out from some kind of internal Indian political controversy involving the teaching of Sikh history in Indian classrooms. It's chock full of nationalism, racialism, and just plain inaccuracy. <eleland/talkedits> 06:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, first of all you are not a military trained person who could comment on what causality levels are possible or not possible in the theatre of war. Only someone who is a professional military person could comment and probably a high level officer such as a General could comment on battle strategies and casualties. Therefore, the official published sources from the respected newspapers stay i.e. The Daily Telegraph (over a 150 years old British newspaper) and with an excellent reputation. Along with The tribute (Over 125 years old) and one of the most respected newspapers in north India (I know I'm a journalist I spent some time in India on a few reporting Jobs). Moreover, the Telegraph source was only added on the 1 of November to this article the source was published June 24 2007. In actual fact I'm not even going to get into a debate about second guessing one of Britain's most respected newspapers, so don't go there (I'm British by the way and I know this is one the country's most respected newspapers). First of all I known, by being British, about the Sikhs they are called the "Indian Samurai" the British were so impressed with their fighting abilities they recruited them in massive numbers. They won the most number of Victoria crosses per capita than anyone in the British army even us British people; I've seen many documentaries about their military prowess.

I'm ok with you toning down the language and the Thermopylae comparison as long as you don't touch the Online published newspaper sources.--James smith2 08:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, if you think the Government of Punjab of India are lying then I think you have possiblily a major problem with other countries and their people.--James smith2 08:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to be a military trained person to make comments about this topic, its simply numbers and logic. Yes, there are thousands of battles in human history were a small number of soldiers defeated a larger army. And no one here denies that this battle happened or that it was a victory. But honestly, those numbers are ridicilous. Also, the Daily Telegraph and the Indian Tribute aren't the oracle of delphi. They can make mistakes. Like it was pointed out before, most "sources" on the Internet contradict with the numbers here, or don't even mention them. If you would check this link, who is at the bottom of the article ( http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armycampaigns/indiancampaigns/samana.htm ) you would see that there, the numbers aren't anywhere to find. Furthermore, i agree that this is certainly not an article that has anything to do with Wikipedia. Its full of nationalistic claims. Again, no one here says that the Sikhs aren't great warriors. But they aren't gods and the article tries everything to give exactly that opinion to the reader. Oh, and if you haven't noticed, governments aren't really a shining example of honesty, anywhere in the world. One last thing. This was rather a small battle. You don't have to be a general, or even a soldier to comment on the logical flaws in the description. Yes, war isn't logic, and its full of suprises and accidents. But everything can be explained. And i mean not explained by saying "They are the greatest warriors ever to roam the earth, they spit fire and shoot laser beams out of their eyes". Take the spartans for example. The battle and its outcome can be understood by nearly every person if you remind them that the spartans stood their ground in a small canyon, which prevented the Persians from encircling them. Yes, they were good warriors too, but the key factor was the canyon. So there, i don't have to be a Field Marshal to understand and to explain this simple fact. Its just logic. On the other hand, the article totally lacks this, taken for example the ammunition problem.--Kelnor 09:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, this is interesting. One of the sources which advocates the "super significant" stance on this battle, basically an Indian military fan-site, is funded by Lancer Publishers & Distributors Ltd, who published "Ashes to Glory". Heh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eleland (talk • contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Exceptional claims requite exceptional sources. A casualty ratio of 4800:1 in 1897 requires truly extraordinary sources. Failing that, we shouldn't front-and-centre that figure. Relata refero 12:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Given the book is out of print, the conspriacy theory hardly seems to fit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.204.243 (talk • contribs)

A more recent book, "Valour and Sacrifice: Famous Regiments of the Indian Army" by Gautam Sharma (1990) states that "at least 600" bodies were found around the fort, while all sources not likely to be based on Wikipedia state that the Afghans admitted to having about 180 killed; those two figures seem to be quite good representatives of opposing propaganda claims around a true figure closer to 400 (fwiw, official dispatches at the time, printed in the London Gazette, stated that the 36th Regiment had 400 rounds of ammunition per rifle, so if the defenders were running out of ammunition, they had fired around 8,000 shots). "Ashes to Glory" may well give a figure of 4,800 dead- but without detailed explanation that figure must be assumed to be incorrect.David Trochos (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Added The Punjab Government of India citation for UNESCO bravery story

Have added the Punjab Governement citation for the UNESCO eight stories of bravery.--James smith2 03:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who has cited the "UNESCO eight stories of bravery" if UNESCO do not cite these stories themselves- and I can confirm what others have already pointed out from UNESCO catalogues. The awkward fact is that EVERY online reference to this alleged UNESCO publication relates to Saragarhi, and NONE gives a reference which can be traced to a real UNESCO publication. David Trochos (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree unless you can prove those Government sources are incorrect they stay - any tampering will be considered vandalism, you will be reported and blocked.--Peter johnson4 (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thermopylae comparison

Can we cite any sort of source for the numeric Thermopylae comparisons? Since there was at least a relief party of 93 involved, it seems undue to calculate 21 against 10,000. Nor is it clear that the 4,800 casualties of the day were exclusively due to the 21 defenders. If the 93+21 British soldiers were the only ones in the field, it will be 114 against 10,000, but it is unclear whether there were other skirmishes going on at the same time. The calculation appears to be WP:SYN, is all, and the implied claim that each of the 21 Sikhs killed 228 Afghans on average, with a single shot rifle and a bayonet, seems tall indeed. this article has "Even the naik who had been wounded earlier shot four attackers from his sick-bed. The last man to die locked himself in the guardroom from where he managed to shoot 20 Pathans" which is certainly remarkable, but falls rather short of the 228 kills average. dab (𒁳) 11:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

But the relief party never reached the fort. They never got through. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.171.204.243 (talk • contribs)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Does David Trochos have Anti-Sikh agenda?

Why is David Trochos removing other peoples references but using his own references. Why does David Trochos feel his references are correct when others are not. Why does David Trochos feels he has the right to remove references and replace with his own. As far as I'm concerned David Trochos has a emotional agenda against the Sikhs and is trying to distort history. David Trochos goes against wikipedia policy and

• removes references and replaces with his own which are not reliable
• Uses emotive language e.g. Propaganda to attack others
• Uses abusive language against others
• Non neutral vandal edits - Negative emotive edits against the Sikhs
• makes personal attacks

As far as I'm concerned this article has been Hijacked by David Trochos. Please write more negative things about the Sikhs and make personal attacks on others. You seem from your attacks emotionally unstable, seriously get Professional help with your mental health and deal with your real issues in your life. Please do NOT bring your personal life or mental health problem here on wikipedia by releasing these problems on attacking or distorting the history of the Sikhs. Well done, you have turned the whole article into a farse, attacked others and tried to distort the history of the Sikhs. As far as I'm concerned you have a emotional agenda against the Sikhs. Well done you've turned the article into a farse. Keep on writing lies!!!--James smith2 (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

22?

A comment on reference 18 ( http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/177018.cms ) says that there where in fact 22 soldiers in the fort, but one is "forgotten" because he was not "of caste". I understand caste is still a large issue in certian parts of India (especially rural), but Wikipedia should reflect only the hard facts. If the comment is true anyway. 86.159.20.246 (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That letter is very tantalising- can anybody with access to more detailed studies shed any light on this? I've seen occasional claims that there was somebody like a janitor also present during the battle, but nothing with reference to contemporary sources. David Trochos (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Another edit war?

An edit war appears to be looming over two changes first made on 17 October 2011 by 1.23.155.12, then remade by Arinjatt after I reverted. The first change is the alteration of the headline Afghan casualty figure to match the number of bodies found after the retaking of Saragarhi by Indian forces, which by definition would include fighters killed in the latter action. Given that, as explained in the article, the post was retaken by the use of intensive artillery fire (which probably also caused most of the damage seen in the photo at the head of the article) it is reasonable to assume that the discrepancy between the figure of 180 acknowledged by the Afghans as killed in the battle, and 600 found after the bombardment, can mostly or entirely be attributed to the effects of overwhelming firepower on troops accustomed to winning by weight of numbers.

The second change is the removal of the "unreferenced" tag from the "Situation" section of the article. While there is indeed one reference in the section, it occurs at the end of the second sentence and appears only to deal with the creation of the 36th Sikh Regiment. Overall, the "Situation" section does indeed contain a great deal of unreferenced material. Personally, I would be inclined to put more "unreferenced" tags in [standing ovation in the British Parliament?], rather than take any out. David Trochos (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Battle of Saragarhi

Cyberbot II has detected links on Battle of Saragarhi which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://yourstory.com/2015/01/indian-army/

  Triggered by \byourstory\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Saragarhi. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012192736/http://www.sikhstudies.org/Periodicals.asp?TtlCod=471 to http://www.sikhstudies.org/Periodicals.asp?TtlCod=471
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150911013420/http://idrw.org/why-the-battle-of-saragarhi-is-among-the-most-epic-battles-of-all-time/ to http://idrw.org/why-the-battle-of-saragarhi-is-among-the-most-epic-battles-of-all-time/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

How to address local name for the site?

A change was made changing "Saragarhi" throughout to "Sangranhi", on the basis that this was phonetically closer to the (?Punjabi?) name for the site. Since no reliable sources were provided for "Sangranhi" (and a quick search didn't find any) and all the cited references use "Saragarhi", I reverted the change. Regardless of the correct phonetics, this is the English version of Wikipedia, and all the accounts I've seen of the battle written in English (even those written in India), use the spelling "Saragarhi". However, the point is well-made that it would be good to provide the local pronounciation. Looking at the Punjabi Wikipedia, it seems the Punjabi for Saragarhi is " ਸਾਰਾਗੜ੍ਹੀ" (based on Google Translate), and I was thinking about adding at the front , e.g. "( In Punjabi, ਸਾਰਾਗੜ੍ਹੀ, pronounced "Saragrahni"), to address that. However, I don't have a reliable reference for either ਸਾਰਾਗੜ੍ਹੀ or "Saragrahni" - can anyone help with that?Macchess (talk) 07:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring with 212.250.25.106

This IP has made multiple POV and unsupported claims edits on the page multiple times in the past day now. I don't wish to become embroiled in an edit war, so what is the best move forward now against what may be vandalism?
--Cheers! Elfabet (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

The anon's edits clearly violate WP:V -- refusal to provide a reliable source or discuss these edits on the talk page will lead to a block. utcursch | talk 14:06, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the agreement. What's the best next step here? I've left a message on their talk page. The IP as whole (from their edit history) appears to make mostly minor, contributive changes, but the talk page had a template of similar potential vandalism regarding this page from two years ago already (and nothing else). Because of this, I suspect that it may be one user who is WP:NOTHERE amongst many in Good Faith. Is two incidents over the course of 2 years worth ANI? Is there a watch list page I can report it to? Or is this best as a "Correct and Forget" situation? Elfabet (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The anon doesn't seem to have made any edits in last 24 hours. You can drop a note at WP:AN/EW if that changes. utcursch | talk 13:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Propaganda?

Curiously, the entire talk page contents for this article, including comments made just a few hours ago, have been banished to an archive, and referenced revisions I made to the article itself have been replaced by claims which, although also referenced, appear to be propaganda (e.g. 4,800 Afghan casualties inflicted by 21 Sikhs with 8,000 bullets; a UNESCO publication about which UNESCO appear to know nothing). Therefore, I'm simply going to state that in its present state, this is the sort of article which gives Wikipedia a bad name. David Trochos (talk) 00:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, some users are trying to spread propaganda here. The UNESCO claim is not credible, unless the original UNESCO source is cited. The many references provided are obviously based on a single source, as is evident by the similar wording. Similarly, the source about 4,800 deaths during the entire campaign is being misrepresented as if all those deaths occurred in a single day during the Battle of Saragarhi. utcursch | talk 03:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a tantalising reference from Google Books:

Sohan Singh Sahota "The Destiny of the Sikhs" Sterling Publishers (1971) page 37: "the great saga of Saragarhi is one of the seven stories of heroism selected out of the entire world history and published by UNESCO."

On the other hand, as far as I can tell, there are no Greek sources referring to the UNESCO citation of the Battle of Thermopylae. I wonder if the publication, presumably back in the 1950s or 60s, was part of a UNESCO-sponsored literacy project in one of the Indian languages? David Trochos (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

All these different books seem to be sourced from a similar source. In the past, I've tried to search extensively for this original UNESCO reference, but have failed. I wonder if this collection of stories was part of some magazine, journal etc. published by UNESCO. If UNESCO officially made a list of stories of heroism or collective bravery, the list and the publication should have been easier to find. utcursch | talk 11:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are actually spot on. I have been through the books written on the battle, including the one by Stewart (2011) and compared various versions. The battle was fought (true) between Sikh soldiers (true) and afghan tribes (true). From here, however, it starts to resemble a hagiography. Sikh soldiers were made to think this was a religious battle - which it was not, for it was just a battle waged by the British imperialists to gain control over a critical part of Afghanistan - which they were never able to before and after (there is nothing like religion to get people fighting). Hence the cries of Sat Sri Akal. The soldiers were paid like any army soldier is, hence there was nothing patriotic about it. I have Sikh friends in the army, whose forefathers have been in various armies for centuries, and the primary reason is similar to why people do various jobs - for the salary, job security, perks, giving ones work and life a higher meaning, and most importantly, a better life for ones family. It is curious though that these wars fought centuries ago are excellent to whip up passions among people, and thus get millions in defence expenditure (read kickbacks and corruption money) approved. Curious that the movie (Kesari) and the tv series have been made around the same time as the Rafale deal controversy is being exposed. Notthebestusername (talk) 03:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree as even I haven't seen any proof about the battle in UNESCO. I went to the UNESCO site and searched for it and came up with nothing. So I don't think its true unless someone else can come up with some sort of evidence. Also about the battle taught in France, this is new to me. It might have been mentioned by some teacher in France and probably got exaggerated that its taught in every school in France. France has enough brave story of their own that they can reflect on. But then again, any document or book or article would be helpful if its true.WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Afghan casualties

Now here's a funny thing. The lower figure of 180 Afghan casualties which I put in, based on Sikhiwiki's Saragarhi article, has quite rightly been removed as that article no longer gives that figure. Unfortunately, no explanation is given there for the change to a minimum of 600- but that's not the funny thing. The funny thing is that the 600 figure was put in there by user Sikh2 to replace the 180 figure at 19.33 on 28 Feb 2008 (the only contribution by that user that day); then at 19.36, user James smith2 removed the 180 figure from this article, his first contribution after a 97-minute break from En.Wikipedia. Synchronicity or what? David Trochos (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

A Hoax?

I don't know where this story comes from but on the French Wikipedia nobody recalls to have ever heard something about this battle[1], and certainly not at school. Furthermore a search on "Saragarhi" on the Website of the UNESCO gives no result. It looks as this story about the battle being subject of a course in French schools or cited by the UNESCO is an Indian hoax wich is not backed up be solid sources. --Lebob-BE (talk) 08:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above, as well as in archives. I agree that the stuff about this being taught in schools in France, and being listed by UNESCO doesn't seem to be correct. These claims seem to have originated from a single source, but they have been published in several sources, including reliable newspapers such as The Tribune. However, a primary source from UNESCO or French textbooks is missing. This reminds me of Wikipedia makes for a nightmare in online journalism ethics: "One of them told me that truth is not even an objective of Wikipedia. Rather the criterion is whether a piece of (mis)information came from a 'reliable source.'". utcursch | talk 12:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I will certainly not make a case from this. But I think that a little bit more critical thinking or even common sense would help to prevent things like "this is teached even in French schools" from being printed in Wikipedia. --Lebob-BE (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good discussion in Le Bistro, thanks Lebob-BE. I had half-heartedly tried to check the "French schools" question, but after finding effectively nothing in Google under: bataille saragarhi :I decided it would, like the UNESCO thing, be a case of trying to prove a negative. David Trochos (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

@utcursch | talk - Thanks a lot for the reference to the excellent article on the reliability of Wikipedia articles (by Barry Kort at USU). It reflects my thoughts perfectly, and I am guessing it also reflects the thoughts of many of us who have been editing articles at Wikipedia for a few years now and have had similar experiences and reflections. I usually show this to my students every semester by showcasing a wiki on a subject that is very specific to my field, but not popular. The amount of bs in them can be stunning, and often remains there for years. Incidentally, the link has changed - here is the updated link to Wikipedia makes for a nightmare in online journalism ethics. Incidentally, this issue is exacerbated when people read wikis on their mobile phones. The reference cross check is easy to do on ta PC (as I invariably do), but exceptionally difficult and inconvenient when one reads on the mobile phone, which is where I suspect many people do their "research"! Worse, what we write on Wikipedia is quickly picked up a few hundred there websites that simply automatically regurgigate whatever appears on Wikipedia.Notthebestusername (talk) 04:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, again from the "Le Bistro":

The official educational program can be read on Ministry of Education website. You can check the program for the last two years of high school in this decree (in French). Last years of high school are the reasonable years to mention this battle. In the decree, nothing specific is said about India, although teachers would mention India as part of the class about colonization. I don't see how we could prove this battle does not appear in textbooks. I can swear it did not appear in the books I used at school, but who knows, maybe one different book mentions it. As long as the book editors follow at least the official program, they are free to add complimentary educational material in their books.

Moreover one part of the sentence is clearly POV-pushing. The mention of an "official education syllabus for heroic valour" seems to have the only objective to associate the battle to "heroism". The two references provided do not mention this word (they talk about "bravery" mentioned the texts of UNESCO, but bravery is not heroism and UNESCO does not decide on "education syllabus" in France). There is no syllabus in France about "heroic valour". General moral lessons have existed but were dropped several tens of years ago. If Government officials wanted to promote "heroic valour" among pupils, they would have chosen an example from their own country, not from a remote country for a war which is not part of teaching program.

Anyway the word "Saragarhi" does neither appear on French Government websites nor any official publication (check with google or with the full-text search of Government publications since 1990).

If you are reluctant to remove all of this surprising information, I would suggest to:

• remove the "as part of the official syllabus [...]" which is not present in the sources.
• Add something like: "According to the Indian newspaper The Tribune"

Have a nice evening. Jérôme (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've had a go. David Trochos (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm a French contributor on the French Wikipedia and i'm interested in military subject. It's a joke to say that this battle is teached in French schools. Nobody knows it and even famous French battles like Austerlitz are only lightly seen in school. Military history and martial virtue are not learned by french pupils. I think you should put away this information which is quite ridiculous.89.226.26.17 (talk) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

"please change Jatt Sikh to Sikh because...According to Guru Granth Sahib Teachings a Sikh is a Sikh irrespective of his/her caste, colour,religion." Amandeep Makkar (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See response below as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2019

In the absence of any written accounts from Pashtun side, all we have is an exaggerated and onesided British account. Sardarjis have added their own masala to the story produced by their former masters, making it more incredible. We are told that 21 Sikh soldiers , who were fighting for the glory of British raj, faced around 10,000 Afghans (some articles also give numbers of 14,000 and 20,000) and were able to kill more than 600 of them before succumbing to 'martyrdom' (for the noble cause of British colonialism), thus achieving greater feat than 300 Spartans of the Hollywood movie. Astonishingly 10,000 to 14,000 Afridis and Orakzais were available from sparsely populated Khyber and Orakzai agencies just for siege of picquet of Saraghari in an uprising of such great scale. The question arises how reliable and trustworthy were the British assessment of numbers of their foes ?. For example in one report they assessed the fighting strength of the Afridis to be 227,000 while the total population of Khyber agency after a century was 284,256 in 1981 census. So claim of Afridis and Orakzais being numerous as ants and locusts for siege of Saragarhi post, should be taken with a pinch of salt. Unlike British, Afridis and Orakzais did not keep written records of their exploits and they did not have any Newspapers. Sikh-Indian articles are saying that more 600 dead bodies of Pashtuns were found on the scene. But a British report in "Navy and Army Illustrated" magazine of 1902 says, "The Afridi dead been, as usual, carried away by their comrades. There was no one left to harass them in doing so" [1]. So no dead bodies of Pashtun tribesmen were found on the scene as their comrades had carried it along with them, and casualties numbers were unknown . Another British source [2] says that "From friendly Rabia Khels, they afterwards learnt that the losses of the enemy, all told during these several operations, were over 400, including some 180 killed in the taking of Saragarhi".

I am interested to know the names of those military historians and their credentials. I have also come across the claim that "the Battle at Saragarhi is one of eight stories of collective bravery published by UNESCO". I did not find any such statement on any website or book of UNESCO. The only sites and books which are reporting it are Sikh-Indian like "Sikh Studies", "The Sikh Review" etc. If any one has proper reference from UNESCO then share it in comments section. The other battle that Sikhs-Indians are including in the "Eight stories of collective bravery" is Battle of Thermopylae (the battle which is shown in the 300 Spartans movie of Hollywood). Despite of my exhaustive search, i could not find the names of other six battles included in the said list by UNESCO. Sikhs themselves are puzzled and are asking the names of other six battles in the list. It seems like made-up information. Sikhs also claim that the marvelous story of battle of Saragarhi is taught to school children in France. Only Sikh-Indian sites are reporting it, again seems to be made-up information.

Its rather very strange that Sikhs celebrate 12 September as Saragarhi day and are very overwhelmed and emotional about their "achievement". They get offended if you are not impressed by it. They should know that Sikhs were described as underwhelming by the same British when they were enemies during Anglo-Sikh wars, and the British hyped those Pashtuns who were fighting for British against Sikhs in that war. For example British tell us that Risaldar Fateh Khan Khattak and his 70 men (serving British) defeated entire brigade of Sikh cavalry (approximately 1500 to 4000 soldiers, comprise a brigade) in open field [3] . Thats more incredible story than battle of Saragarhi.

A British source says, "Pathan soldiers are notoriously disloyal, and are not thoroughly trusted by British commanders" [4]. This may be insult of Pashtuns in the eyes of Sikhs and other Indian people but its actually a greatest compliment for Pashtuns. Churchill writes: "An officer of the Guides Infantry, of long experience and considerable distinction, who commands both Sikhs and Afridis, and has led both many times in action, writes as follows: "Personally, I don't blame any Afridis who desert to go and defend their own country, now that we have invaded it, and I think it is only natural and proper that they should want to do so" 59.91.25.145 (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

why mention Jat Sikhs?

I do not understand why Jat Sikhs have been mentioned in introduction paragraph. Sikhism do not includes castes. They are either Sikh or Jat not both.

BTW, those 21 Sikhs were from different castes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirtimaansyal (talk • contribs) 13:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Kirtimaansyal, this article is not about Sikhism. Britishers openly followed their so-called Martial race theory, and recruited in British Indian army on its basis. The battalion in question was a result of such discriminatory recruitment – it was a single class battalion, as mentioned in the ref 8 of the present version. In fact, those British army recruitment policies had long-lasting effects. And India still have regiments like Gurkha Regiment, Jat Regiment, Dogra Regiment, etc. which are mostly pure regiments. Even there are regiments which are composed of limited communities, e.g. Rajputana Rifles has mainly Jats and Rajputs. BTW, your claim in the last sentence is wrong unless you can provide a source for that. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

my uncle served in Jat regiment, my cousin is an officer in Gorkha regiment, my Tamilian friend is currently working in Panjab regiment.I think, you need to read more about the Army structure. Regiment has nothing to do with caste not anymore, it is just to be in a group where one can connect well and have a role in which one may fit in.

Sikhism is a separate religion, may be you may read more on that. In fact, Sikhs were initially Khatris and not Jats or from any other community, so how come all Sikhs became Jats.

Here, I am only asking to correct a wrong phrase "Jat Sikh" to "Sikh" and not anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirtimaansyal (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

In my previous comment, I explained the exact reason for "how come all Sikhs became Jats": see Martial race. But you are not listening. And your uncles and friends are neither reliable nor relevant here. Everything else has already being explained by me. BTW, this is the second time that you are calling a reliably-sourced information – e.g. see here and here – as wrong. I am repeating again that if you've any source to back up your claim then please bring it here. Otherwise there is no point in making unsourced claims. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

First, I am here to discuss so calm down, I cannot listen here, I can only read. If you are so sure of it, why dont you put up a reference to it in the article that will close the case. As of now, there is no reference to it. Whatever you are sharing are either snippet views-or not accessible or references from British era (or copied from British era references) thus not valid at least in Wikipedia. I will appreciate if you may share the complete article from some trustworthy source. Here, I am not making the claim of Jat Sikhs but you are, so the burden of proof is on you.

Second, Sikhism is a different religion and all people from this religion were recruited in the Sikh regiment irrespective whether they were Jats or Brahmins or whatsoever.

Third, on an important note, Jat was a loose term at that time and used to refer to people from agricultural background-in fact it was never a caste. Whosoever used to practice agriculture used to be categorized as a Jat.

before discussing further, google my surname, you will realize that despite of being from the community, I am still trying to preserve the facts. I will not discuss further. I dont have time nor interest to engage further.

thank you very much for your time. Kirtimaansyal (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, as mentioned by me in the very first comment here, the content is already sourced to ref 8 – see Battle of Saragarhi#Situation. The content sourced in the article's body doesn't normally needs to be sourced again in the lead, as the lead serves the summary of the article's body. But on your insistence, and also on the basis of MOS:LEADCITE, I will add the ref in the lead as well.

Secondly, I've read whole of the relevant content on the listed pages of the sources provided by me. In fact, I still have access to full preview of the relevant page of the first source. And I can also quote relevant paragraphs of the second source, but that would be pointless as the relevant content has already been quoted by me in the links provided earlier. Also, both of the sources are modern & reliable, and neither of them is from the British era. Rest is again your personal opinions which are irrelevant here. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

They were the Sikhs from various castes and not only "Jat Sikhs"

They were the Sikhs from various castes and not only "Jat Sikhs", as they were recruited by a different method instead of "Martial Race" Theory. Read the heading "A regiment to combat 'tribal agitation'" of article "The 1897 Battle of Saragarhi: The Real History Behind Kesari" from "Historyextra". This "Historyextra" article was cited from a book "The Life of Lieut.-Col. John Haughton" by Major A.C. Yate. In the Chapter VI (The Defence of the Samana Forts) he clearly describes about the War at Samana Forts and Services of 35th Sikhs and 36th Sikhs (Sister Regiments). In the footnotes of Page No. 114 and 115 of the book, he describes that "novel method" to recruit the Young Sikhs For The Regiment. And this is a reliable source from the veteran army personnel of the British and especially the Commander of the 36th Sikh. And the Reference that was cited in Your Article about the regiment that it was 'composed entirely of Jat Sikhs' was also highlighted in that book on Page No. 104 and 105, but that account was for 35th Sikhs and not for 36th Sikhs. There he also described about the raising of the 35th Sikhs from March, 1887 and completed the recruitment by latter part of July, 1887.

The lines from different Pages are as follows, Prince Kataria (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC) ● From Page No. 104- In March, 1887, the 10th Bengal Infantry being ordered on active service in Burma, Captain Haughton offered to resign his wing in the 39th and rejoin the 10th. The Commander-in-Chief did not accept the offer, but very shortly afterwards appointed him to a permanent wing in the 35th Sikhs, which was now ordered to be raised. On May 12 Captain Haughton wrote — "The 35th is to be raised at Ferozpur, and is to be composed entirely of 'Jat' Sikhs from north of the Sutlej. They are the very best class of Sikhs. I believe the usual rule about not being able to take leave until one has been ten months in an appointment, will not apply in my case, as I have been in a cognate appointment ; but my leave will probably be delayed two or three months. That is a sore disappointment to me, and will be so, I fear, to my dear old father ; but it would have been pro- fessional suicide to have declined the appointment which, please remember, I never applied for."

● From Page No. 105- In the latter part of July, 1887, Haughton was at Amritsar on recruiting duty. By September the 35th Sikhs had been recruited up to the full strength of 912 of all ranks.

● From Page No. 114 footnotes- The 36th, like the 35th Sikhs, were raised in the hot weather of 1887. The two were sister battalions. As has been recorded, John Haughton assisted in raising the 35th, and has left on record that when he joined that corps at Ferozepur in May, 1887, " there were only about one hundred men in the regiment," and that " by August and September the regiment had reached its full strength of 912 of all ranks." I learn from the Indian papers that the 36th was raised by Colonel "Jim" Cooke and Captain H. R. Holmes, with Lieutenant (now Brevet-Major) C. R. Johnstone as Adjutant. Captain Holmes was the biggest and most powerful man of his time in the Indian Army, and performed at least one gallant act in saving life. It is said that when recruiting for the 36th Sikhs in the Ludhiana District, he used to challenge all and any to wrestle (the Sikhs are great wrestlers and fine athletes), the conditions being that the competitors should,

● From Page No. 115 footnotes (to be read with footnotes of Page No. 114)- if worsted, enlist. This novel method so stimulated the recruiting, that the regiment is said to have been fit to appear before the Commander-in-Chief at a camp of exercise at Meerut during the cold weather of 1887-88. In 1891 the regiment left Delhi for Manipur, 777 strong, every man being five feet eight inches, or over, and thirty-six inches round the chest. Captain Holmes, having done his duty in raising a regiment physically worthy of his own splendid physique, retired from the Army in 1892.

Hope all this help you in replacing that "Jat Sikh" Term with "Sikh" in the Article.

The lines in the Article Heading "Situation" are also misquoted about the dates (20th April, 1894) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Kataria (talk • contribs) 10:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

Mainly three tribes of pashtuns Belligerents Shinwari, Afridi and orakzai. on 3 and 9 September Afridi tribesmen, allied with the Afghan tribes mainly Shinwari tribe. shinwari tribe fought in the battle of saragarhi. MalikAShinwari (talk) 11:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2019

Simple request. Add a protection template. The Train Noch (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 15:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2019

Please change "Jat Sikh" to just "Sikh". The source confirming the matter is opinion based, and is also partially inaccessible. Saying Jat Sikh instead of simply Sikh lends to promoting the caste system in India. This is against any encyclopedia's policy of presenting a neutral stance on giving explanation of a specified topic.

Please make the necessary correction. Thanks very much. Unztopable (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 10:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

Insert Result in the Infobox where result: Decisive Afghan Victory Culpable Injustice (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Jat Sikh

This is completely WRONG JAT is NOT a caste but an occupation...there is no way of knowing accurately that thr 21 sikhs were Jat...in fact inwould contend quite the opposite Birdpro27 (talk) 08:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

10,000 or 1,500? Orakzai, Afghan?

Hey all, reading the intro to the page the first paragraph states " 21 Sikh soldiers fought on behalf of the British Indian Army against 10,000 Pashtun Orakzai tribesmen" however the paragraph directly after that states 21 fought against 1000-1500 Afghans, which is correct? Dibble18 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

According to the source, 10,000 was the number of soldiers that attacked various forts (which included Saragarhi, Gulistan, and Lockhart) on the Samana Ridge. Of these, 1,000-1,500 attacked Saragarhi. I've updated the article accordingly. utcursch | talk 20:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In interview with NDTV reporter around April/May 2019 due to controversy caused by his statement and about providing documents, HS Panag response was that it was confidential and actually found just one page which was hidden between the files of 1971 India-Pakistan war that he was looking into. Reporter asked, if it was confidential then why did you mention it as its not confidential anymore. His response, I just gave a bit of information only and there is a lot that "must" have happened but those documents were taken by the British when they left. So its not a reliable source. HS Panag is also not a researcher/professor or a historian. He has remained in controversy majority of the time due to his controversial statements especially about Indian Army. Its correct that more than 10000 of Orakzai and Afridi tribes came together and instead of Saragarhi, they tried to attack other forts in August but were repulsed by British Sikh Army. And the reason was Saragarhi which was the communication aid between fort Gulistan and fort Lockhart which provided heads up information/warning about the oncoming assault. That is why in September, more than 10000 army decided to take down Saragarhi fort first to break communication and then attack other forts. Plan was to take down Saragarhi early in the morning (possibly in 1 hour) and take over the other forts by evening before any additional relief is sent. But to their surprise, Saragarhi itself took 7-10 hrs to capture. Credible source, Page 408. Also another source. "“A book that glorifies the spirit of soldiering.” – Lieutenant General S.K. Jha, Colonel of the Sikh Regiment".WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 15:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a link to this NDTV interview? The authors that you're citing aren't historians either. "Kiran Nirvan" are Kirandeep Singh (former head of Management Studies) and Nirvan Singh (an Indian army officer). Tom Lansford is a professor of political science, and even he doesn't explicitly mention that 10,000 soldiers attacked Saragarhi in particular: in the preceding sentences, he describes the campaign in general; he resumes description of Sargarhi with "Groups of the tribesmen attacked...".

Do any of the books / articles that mention the number "10,000" cite an actual contemporary source for this figure, or describe how they came up with this estimate? utcursch | talk 16:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

After I sent you message, I started to see if there is video on youtube on HS Panag interview regarding Saragarhi but no luck. Sorry. Felt so disappointed.

There is information in British Military Library and in the Liddle Hart Centre for Military Archive regarding the Battle of Saragarhi provided by Lieutenant General Andrew Graham, Field Marshal Sir John Chapple. Information from them was used to write the book "Saragarhi and the Defense of the Samana Forts: The 36th Sikhs in the Tirah Campaign 1897-98". Field Marshal John Lyon Chapple during its launch in London was gifted a copy of the book. Then there is also "Saragarhi: The True story by Jay Singh Sohal". He went through extensive research in writing the book through Military sources. Then you also have Col Ahluwalia who co-authored the book Saragarhi Battalion – Ashes to Glory, based on official records still maintained in the battalion archives. But yes majority of the historians/writers don't provide sources but do extensive research before writing it down leaving you to either agree with them or disagree. Professors on the other hand obviously borrow it from historians. When HS Panag interview in April/May 2019 (more of a debate with other historians where reporter asks questions and every one puts forward their point of view which ends up in blame and screaming and yelling), it had me thinking but didn't have me convinced. I also saw a clip of a news article dated Sep 14th, 1897 which said that "thousands surrounded Saragarhi". Now I am thinking, why it said thousands and not estimate figure of like 10000. Or was it said in an expression for 10000. But I couldn't find any strong proof. That is why I am more inclined towards 10000 due to various information/books like from the above authors and others that are more convincing. But I am always open to more information because you know history is very debatable subject. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 20:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

User:WorldWikiAuthorOriginal

I am not going to revert or change the edits of others. I am adding my change only. Thanks. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@WorldWikiAuthorOriginal: Thank you for paying attention to WP:WAR. I moved your message, which you had posted on my talk page, to the talk page of the article, as is usually done. Pinging Kansas Bear as he also voiced concerns about your edit. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Per your advice and per wikipedia editing policy "Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced. Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact", I have not reverted or removed change of other editors. Sorry for any inconvenience. - WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 24:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources cited by you (metrosaga.com, medium.com, topfactslist.com, weaponsandwarfare.com) are not acceptable sources. Please have a look at WP:RS. utcursch | talk 18:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I count 4rr by WorldWikiAuthorOriginal.[2][3][4][5] --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Make that 5rr. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure which one that is but had a question for you below. --WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Thanks for pointing out the error about unreliable links. I still have some questions. Why is "theprint.in" considered reliable link? - WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 18:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I sent you email yesterday with question about reliable links. Please respond at your convenience. Thanks. - WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Please paste your e-mail here, so others can participate in the discussions.

Have a look at WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. Also, reliability depends on context. For example, a The Times of India report is a reliable source for the claim that Indian won the T20 cricket series against New Zealand. However, it may not be a reliable source for strength of armies in a historical battle, unless it is citing a more authoritiative source (in which case, we should be using that source anyway). In general, for historical battles, one should rely on qualified historians / recognized military experts.

To answer the question "Does this author provide a reliable figure for the strength of invaders?", you can ask yourself "What is the source used by this author?" A scholarly book or article will generally cite a contemporary source (in footnote or elsewhere). For example, Gen H. S. Panag cites Digest of Service of 36/4. utcursch | talk 16:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand and agree with you. Thank you. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 20:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

British India or British Empire or British Indian Army but not India

In the article, the Flag icon next to India is of British India. So it shouldn't be called India under Belligerents. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What you are calling "British India" was simply called "India" or "Indian Empire" when it existed. In modern times, it is "British India" to distinguish it from the present-day Republic of India. utcursch | talk 16:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I get your point and its absolutely ok but with "British India", you can tell it was British Empire vs the Afghans whereas with India, it just sounds like Indians vs the afghans. But either way, I just wanted to relay my point. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 21:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

November 18, 1897 News Article. Lowest Estimate 20000

Battle of Saragarhi News article from 1897

WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 10:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Numbers of battle

The numbers mentioned here and the numbers mentioned in the sources are different. And the way this article is written implies that the 21 sikhs fought all the 10000 soldiers at once which is blatantly false. And how can you even protect this page with all these inaccuracies? Dev253 (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources state same number too in majority. But it's obvious that in no war all army attacks at once. But it's the total number that is taken into account. HaughtonBrit (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dev253 that the strength of Pashtun side for the battle is given as the overall strength for the whole of campaign probably. In battle round about a thousand fought in real. USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Correct the name

Those who instructed the Sikh Soldiers are named Havaldar Iswar Singh Sumit banaphar (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

The Other Side of the Story

The subject article is stating one side of the story, however, we need to look into the undocumented history of the people of that area which is narrated and transferred from generation to generation and also corroborated by various writers of that era. The battle was not, in the first place, fought between Orakzais and Sikhs as depicted in this article. It was rather one of a series of battles between the mighty British Empire and the Tribesmen of the Tirah region including Sikhs, in the decade of the 1890s. The tribesmen challenged the British many times on various fronts to thwart their imperialistic designs of making the Tirah region their colony. These constant clashes finally lead to the Tirah Campaign or Tirah Expedition in October 1897. Sikhs were made a pawn in the British great game of colonization.

We have so far received only one version of the events as stated by British or Indian military writers which are not sufficient to corroborate with facts. The other side of the story is not yet known, so we cannot deduce or infer the truth from one side of historians. Secondly, as there was no survivor of the battle of Sragarhi, we don’t exactly know what really happened on that fateful day i.e 12th September 1897. The writer has made an attempt to make a mountain of a molehill and twisted the facts against one of the Tribes living in Tirah i.e. Orakzais. The fact of the matter is that courageous tribesmen persistently attacked and challenged the British advances into Tirah Region on all sides including Khyber Pass. The writer is oblivious to the fact that the Tirah region has a history of being the citadel of Islamic Monotheism and have fought against the Mughals in 17th Century or more precisely against Akbar’s religion of Deen-e-Elahi and also valiantly against the Sikh Rulers in Peshawar. Sikhs were overthrown by The British in the Anglo-Khalsa wars 1846-50.

Moreover, another fact is that Sikhs community has a history of living as Hamsayas (in the protection of tribe) in the Tirah region from Mughal days and enjoyed till this day a peaceful life and doing business and owns properties which undoubtedly exhibits the hospitable and generous nature of the people of Tirah and speaks volumes of their traditional codes of conduct. Being a resident of that area, the stories told by the 2nd generation of the people who actually fought on that day say that Sikhs residents of Tirah have been part of the tribesmen Lashkar on that day as well fighting against the British army for the protection of Tirah region.

Regarding the number of Tribesmen Lashkar, we cannot say with certainty since that how many participated and we don’t have recorded history of the Tirah region by Pakhtoon Historians. The matter is open to research.

It is again a fact that the British Forts and other posts on Samana Ridge were established on precipices and well-fortified and adequately manned by trained personnel. Sragarhi post if examined minutely will testify that it was located in a place where it was exceedingly inaccessible for humans due to its topography & terrain. On the other hand, the resources of Tribesmen Lashkar who were coming from the khanki and Mastura Valley on foot with meager weapons cannot be compared with the resourcefulness of the then Super Power: The British Empire. Furthermore, the chronicles of British writers suggest that the British personnel present in twin Forts of Gulistan and Fort Lockhart did not bother to come to the rescue of the low-rank employees who were posted in Sragarhi post. They were primarily concerned about their own, lives & safety.

Awarding the Indian Order of Merit (IOM) and erecting a memorial does not make it an act of bravery as IOM was awarded to so many others during the Tirah Expedition. Quite a few Tirah Memorials have also been erected in the UK including one in Oxford which highlights the obstinate resistance shown to the Britishers by the Tribal Lashkars.

Again, it is shrouded in doubts that how many tribesmen sacrificed their lives in this particular battle but the fact remains that Sragarhi post was captured, people inside were killed, the post was razed to the ground, and flag of Tribesmen Lashkar was hoisted in few hours.

The writer has also deliberately tried to avoid showing the slogans raised by the Tribal Lashkar during the fight. War slogan of the various fights in the Tirah region has always been "Allah o Akbar" (Allah is the greatest). As I write these lines, sitting on the Samana ridge, I hear the Azaan (call to prayers) nearby masjid and the whole valley is echoing with words Allah o Akbar, Allaho Akbar, La Illaha Illallah, (Allah is great; and there is no one worthy of worship but Him alone.) Samana Orakzai (talk) 08:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Understanding Battle and Misconception

In a battlefield, say for example, you have 100000 soldiers against 20000, strategically you won't send all 100,000 soldiers at once. You begin with small group. If its not effective, then you send more and then more and so on. If 30000 soldiers sent are successful in defeating then it doesn't mean that it was a battle fought with just 30000 only. The total number of soldiers present in the battlefield is what you take as everyone plays an active role one way or the other. Take 300 spartans in the Battle of Thermopyle as example. They have been said to have fought against tens of thousands and that is because that's the total number present in the battle field against them. But they fought against equal or unequal numbers of group that were sent each time. Similarly, 21 soldiers of Saragarhi were surrounded by 10000s or 12000s or 14000s and that is the odd they were against in total but not all swarmed at once. Atleast not till the fall of 21 Soldiers after 7-8 hours or whatever time it took. WorldWikiAuthorOriginal | talk 11:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@WorldWikiAuthorOriginal: There is so much exaggeration in numbers as to this battle. I agree with the point the strength of Pashtin side for the battle is the overall strength for the whole of campaign probably. In battle round about a thousand fought in real. USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Sources don’t lie. Not sure why you’re taking the battle so personally. BorisTheBulgar (talk) 20:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s known as a heroic last stand because it was. It’s remembered in history and culture because it was an exceptional defence against an overwhelming and more numerous enemy BorisTheBulgar (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

1400 dead claim

Regarding this edit by 192.189.187.122: None of the cited sources say that there were 1400 dead on the Afghan side. The edit messes with quotes, changing 180 to 600 (which according to the sources, was the number of bodies found at the site after the recapture of the fort). These changes seem to have been first made by two SPAs - Josephdenis123 (talk · contribs) and Amirkhan75401 (talk · contribs), but are not supported by the cited sources. Feel free to add this number with a source that actually backs it up. utcursch | talk 13:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

To the IP hopper (192.189.187.122 / 199.82.243.107): Your latest edits (example) again mess with quotes from the cited source. The three cited sources state that 180 were killed in the Battle of Sargarhi; a couple of others state that 600 dead bodies were found after the fort was captured (presumably this includes those killed by the party that recaptured the fort). Also, inserting "1400 Afghan bodies were found at the battlefield" in <ref></ref> tags doesn't make it a sourced statement. Finally, Story of a Soldier is a self-published book, and not an acceptable source. If a reliable source mentions that 600 Afghans were killed by the 21 Sikhs, feel free to add it to the article to cite the upper range of the estimate. utcursch | talk 21:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The anon (this time from 192.189.187.112) again falsified quotes from the cited sources, changing "180" to "600", adding the number "1400" which is not supported by any of the cited sources (even the unreliable ones).

The newly added sources are not reliable: Martial races of undivided India by Vidya Prakash Tyagi is plagiarized from Wikipedia, and therefore, not a reliable source. Indiatimes.com is an online tabloid whose unreliability has been discussed at WP:RSN in the past; moreover, the writer is not an expert in the area.

Pinging @RegentsPark:, since the anon the anon stated "Reverted to revision by RegentsPark": the figures in the version that you last edited are result of overlooked edits by two SPAs (who are probably same as 192.189.*.*):

• [6]: Josephdenis123 changed "180" to "600" in a quote from the cited source
• [7][8]: Amirkhan75401 inserted the number "1400", and also changed "180" to "600" in a sentence, again, without any source.

utcursch | talk 14:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: I reverted what I thought was an unsourced change and have no idea what the right number is. But, I've protected the page and suggest that the IP use the talk page to get consensus for their numbers (along with sources). If that doesn't happen, I'll extend the protection. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: Since you mentioned times of India is reliable source, it states 180 to 200 casualties. You can take a look. [9]] Also, other reliable sources that state 600 are from Tribune India [10]] and from The Vintage News [11]. Also from Business Insider [12]. Some more, from statesman [13]. So being neutral, 600 can be added as total casualities whereas in brackets, it can be stated that Afghans claimed to have 180 dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.81.206.160 (talk • contribs)

Unless written by people whose area of expertise is military/history, news articles aren't great sources for history-related articles.

If even some experts believe that none of the ~600 dead bodies found at Saragarhi resulted from recapture of the fort (after the famed last stand), I'm sure we can find some books / journal articles / newspaper articles written by experts that support the 600 figure. I'll try to find some myself.

The "1400" figure doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources (even the shoddy ones). utcursch | talk 13:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: 1400 is not what I stated. I don't know where that even came from as I was reverting to the revision by RegentsPark but its not even his fault as even he didn't know what was the right number due to all the skirmishes. I believe the articles I showed you are reliable and great sources, enough to state that the casualities were 600. So you should consider changing the number to 600, not just due to the sources but also by keeping all the editor's opinion in a neutral perspective. Also here is a source from the Military expert, Brig S Sunder Rajan, [14]. Page 20. Clearly states, atleast 600 Enemy soldiers were killed. Also if you look at this book, Page 131, it clearly states that "They refused and fought on till they were killed to the last man . Supposedly 600 dead Afghans lay around them ." [15]. The Publication is Vision Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.112 (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned earlier: the news articles that you've linked above are not acceptable sources for a history-related article: they are not written by people whose subject of expertise is military or history. If The Times of India publishes an article on the history of Harappa written by a reputed archaeologist, it maybe an acceptable source. If the same newspaper publishes an article on the same topic written by a journalist who covers daily news ranging from politics to sports, that article would not be an acceptable source for a Wikipedia article on Harappa, especially when contradicted by other sources.

This is true in general: popular news websites and newspapers may be reliable sources for current affairs, but not for other topics, especially when the topic is not a part of author's area of expertise. This has been established several times at WP:RSN. Even for current affairs, additional considerations may apply (for example, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 287#Times_of_India_RFC and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 324#RfC:_Business_Insider). When the journalists know little about the topic they are writing on, they end up writing articles like this one: Hyderabad Boy's Chai Pe Charcha with Wikipedia. If you still insist that the sources that you've presented are reliable, feel free to seek a third opinion at WP:RSN.

As for Personalities Inked, it's from Booksclinic - a self-publishing company - and not acceptable per WP:SPS (not to mention that it's a book of sketches, not meant to be an authoritative source about any topic). The other book seems decent, but it doesn't explicitly say that the 21 soldiers killed 600 attackers: it seems to repeat what the other sources say (the ~600 dead bodies were found when the fort was recaptured: the count presumably included those killed by the force that recaptured the fort). Feel free to seek a third opinion at WT:MIL, WT:IND or another place if you disagree.

If a decent source explicitly says the 21 soldiers killed 600 / 1400 / <whatever number> attackers, I've no problem with that being added to the article. utcursch | talk 15:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: My reference for the first source was about the military expert and not what the publisher or publication is. And the information was written by Military expert. Whereas the second source states that 600 body lay around them and it does not state that the count also included those killed by the relief force. There is nothing to presume in this content. Word to word on page 131 - "They refused and fought on till they were killed to the last man . Supposedly 600 dead Afghans lay around them ." Here is another book [16]. This one states word to word "MORE than 600 dead bodies of Pashtuns were counted around the fort after it was later captured. Thus ended an incomparable saga of bravery and self sacrifice of 21 soldiers". No where it states that "presumably" some of them died when the fort was captured. No where does any of the sources in the article explicitly say the 21 Soldiers killed 180 either but you conclude the meaning behind the statement. Its similar situation when it comes to concluding that 600 or so cab be considered as the actual figure of the casualities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.112 (talk • contribs)

Concluding that 600 attackers were killed during the initial attack wouldn't be a problem, if there were no sources contradicting that information. We've four sources that state 180 attackers were killed during the Battle of Saragarhi / initial attack on the post (two of these attribute this figure to admittance by the Afghans themselves, another to "estimates", and yet another to "official assessment". The two sources that you mention above do not state the 600 deaths happened during the initial attack on the post - one of them explicitly states that the body count is from after the recapture of the fort.

As for the self-published sketch book, feel free to get a third opinion at WP:RSN. utcursch | talk 20:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Utcursch: There are sources contradicting if only 180 were killed such as the sources that I provided. Also when it comes to reliable news sites, the editors post articles that go through rigorous research. Like articles on Harappa, it surely goes through the research concluded by Archaeologists and others sources before being posted on reliable platforms. We cannot be Judge and Jury especially if the site is reliable. But I will take a look at WP:RSN. There was one article I read where the journalist made a better statement, which is what I am trying to make the point. It stated: "In addition to the 21 Sikh dead, reports of Pashtun losses range from between 180 and 600, though it's difficult to discern the true number accurately." That is why I meant that the article should show 180 - 600 Killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.189.187.123 (talk • contribs)

Pretty silly of you to create an account impersonating me (User:AtmaramU). The latest sources that you've added are not great either. The news article is not a great source, as others have pointed out in threads initiated by you at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Personalities Inked / Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Valid Sources?. The other two books talk about casualties (which includes killed and wounded). In fact, they cast doubt on the "600" figure that you've been pushing for -- you deliberately left out "or wounded" when you included a quote from Saragarhi Battalion: Ashes to Glory.... The Statesman (news) and Sainik Samachar (government glorifying its army) aren't great sources either, but I will let these remain for now, pending other editors' opinion. utcursch | talk 17:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what impersonation you are talking about and not sure what you would like to accomplish by making such claims but I would rather respectfully ignore it. Please, do not intentionally put accusation on me. I have been very respectful to you throughout the discussion. Also I copied and pasted the comment so please no need to judge as it wasn't intentionally. Looks like another user added the missing comment and that is perfectly fine. The latest sources I have added are all well discussed through WP:RSN. You can see I ignored Times of India as its not considered reliable but Tribune and Statesman are considered reliable. Also you removed the source by Dennis Showlater, a Military Historian, one of the strongest sources. Infact your sources aren't considered reliable as per WP:RSN where Vision Book is not reliable publisher and nor is The Sikh Courier International Volumes 38-42 but you yet went ahead and added those back again. That is why keeping everyone opinion in consideration, I changed the number from 180-600 instead of just 600 due to different claims made in the sources. AtmaramU

I did not remove Dennis Showalter - I simply used it to cite another bit (wounded): the word "casualties" includes both dead and wounded. Apologies for re-adding the other two - I've removed them. As for the impersonation, it's pretty obvious, but let's keep that aside for another day. utcursch | talk 02:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Afghan casualties in infobox

You will note that I have created a new "Aftermath" section by moving an existing paragraph that discusses the subsequent events and the casualties. This is a standard way of structuring an article and dealing with such information. In the infobox, I have reported "450 dead and wounded" citing the two references. I have also added a note to "See Aftermath section". A casualty ratio of over 20:1 is exceptional. Higher figures would beggar belief given limited ammunition carried. The figure of 600 dead cannot be fully attributed to the defenders - as explained in the text. An infobox cannot capture the nuance of such a detailed explanation. It is therefore better to direct the reader to the main text when the simple detail that might be shown in the infobox is inadequate and potentially misleading. I am also seeing what I perceive to be "uninformed journalistic well-intended misinformation" - they tend to lack the rigor of a monograph publication. Journalistic sources really have little place as sources for such an article. I do hope that this might resolve the "contentiousness" relating to reporting the Afghan casualties in the infobox. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Change afghan casualties to "180-450 casualties (estimated)" with the current aftermath section still linked, would be better referenced and more accurate, since a lot of sources also state around 180 during the initial battle. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 19:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The infobox says 450 dead and wounded, not 450 dead. There are two references supporting this. The "Aftermath" section says 180 dead plus more wounded. 180 is not an alternate figure for the total of dead and wounded, but a total for dead only. FDW777 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

What FDW777 said. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 July 2021

Looking to tidy the page. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Otherwise, you'll need to wait until the protection level decreases (which is scheduled to happen 2021-07-13) so that you can edit it yourself. ––FORMALDUDE^(talk) 04:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done feel free to reactivate after providing what was requested above. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:47, 12 July 2021 (UTC)