Talk:Battle of Saragarhi/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)