Talk:Battle of Amritsar (1757)

Battle outcome disputed?

Most historians agree that the battle of amritsar was a Sikh victory how come its considered disputed? 142.116.188.217 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"Most" historians?

• "Historian Rishi Singh states that Jahan Khan achieved a victory along with the death of Baba Deep Singh. Historian J.S. Grewal states that Jahan Khan was nearly overwhelmed by the Sikhs before Afghan reinforcements arrived and saved the day. The historian Himadri Banerjee states the Sikhs were defeated and many were massacred."

And this entire paragraph is cited. Did you even read the references, or the paragraph for that matter?--Kansas Bear (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Rishi Singh claims that jahan Khan desecrated shri harminder sahib after the battle took place.However the Sikhs attacked amritsar after they heard that the Afghans had destroyed the shri harminder sahib.So it's strange to me how some of these sources contradict eachother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.116.188.217 (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• "Rishi Singh claims that jahan Khan desecrated shri harminder sahib after the battle took place"

And if the Sikhs had won the battle just exactly how would Jahan Khan been able to desecrate anything?

• "On the other hand, the Sikhs mobilised themselves under the leadership of Baba Deep Singh and marched in gala dresses similar to that of a bridegroom with festal ribbons on their wrists and saffron sprinkled on their robes. The battle took place near Amritsar in which Baba Deep Singh was killed. After his victory, Jahan Khan destroyed and polluted the places of worship of the Sikhs." --Singh, Rishi (2015). State Formation and the Establishment of Non-Muslim Hegemony: Post-Mughal 19th-century Punjab, page 65.
• "Towards the end of 1757, the veteran Afghan General Jahan Khan, who was appointed by Ahmad Shah Abdali to assist his son Timur Shah in the administration of the province, was nearly overpowered by the Singhs before he was saved by the timely arrival of fresh Afghan contingents." --Grewal, J.S. (1990). The Sikhs of the Punjab. Cambridge University Press. p. 91.
• "A battle was fought by Jahan Khan with the Sikhs at Amritsar on the day of the Diwali festival, 11 November 1757, in which the Sikhs were defeated and most of them massacred." -- Banerjee, Himadri (2002). The Khalsa and the Punjab Studies in Sikh History, to the Nineteenth Century, page 46.

Appears clear to me. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

My point was this.That some Sikh sources state that after the afghans had desecrated shri harmandir sahib,the Sikhs under baba deep singh ji attacked the afghans forces and successfully liberated the city of amritsar.Meanwhile Rishi Singh (along with other historians)states that after jahan khan defeated the Sikhs,he then preceded to desecrate shri harminder sahib.Im very confused on weather or not this was a Sikh victory or not.After looking at your references I agree with making the battles outcome disputed.Another source by the name of the tahmas nama mentions that the Sikhs has assembled at Chak guru (amritsar) and were taking a religious bath.When the afghans heard that the Sikhs were creating "disturbances",the Afghan forces under jahan khan attacked the Sikhs near amritsar.Jahan khan forces were overwhelmed,however the forces under haji atai khan successfully reinforced jahan khan and pursued the Sikhs till amritsar.However the tahmas nama doesn't mention of any desecration occurring after the battle concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.116.188.217 (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I just did a surface copy-edit of the article, mostly for sentence mechanics. (I am not sure who needs to hear this but English really really really wants a space between sentences and omitting it is very distracting.)

I came to the talk page to say that I get that the story is told several ways but the outcome section as currently written is pretty choppy. It would probably be best to incorporate that section into the battle section. As I am unfamiliar with all of the accounts, I hesitate to tackle this myself. (Do I remember seeing this at AfD?)

It's not that unusual for editors to discover that the history they know is told completely differently by a different group of people. I'll spare you the details of my own epiphany about this, but I think the thing to do is determine the points of divergence, which do seem to be many.

There seems to be agreement that there was a battle. It's a start.

I don't want to get into the weeds on this, but where the accounts diverge, for example on who was outnumbered, the point to discuss this where it first comes up in Wikipedia's version of the story. For the respective numbers of the hosts, this would be when discussing the order of battle, no?

To my completely ignorant, but therefore also fresh, first glance, the article currently reads like "here is what happened and here are some other people who think otherwise." So I am going to flag this article for NPOV, although I don't see anything too hortibe and it looks like an attempt at neutrality has already been made. Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Any assistance would be appreciated, Elinruby. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: Go ahead and take a look. I have no particular emotional attachment to this text, and have not attempted to verify it, but I think I may have fixed what I was talking about, and don't think I changed any meanings. Feel free to edit from here as you think best. Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

aha, looks like I or the well-meaning newbie who reverted me caused some ref errors. I will fix these momentarily; I just want to go ask them gently. what they thought they were doing. BRB Elinruby (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Negligence on my part as I was running comparison between two version. Still the article looks a mess even without your changes. The best last version was by Kansas Bear done on 17:47, 30 December 2022. I think it needs to be reverted back to that version. I will take time to review this article tomorrow.Javerine (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I bow to your hundreds of edits.

I think that this version is much more neutral and reads better. Not to mention that it eliminates some English language problems. I am not against further edits, mind you, but discuss them please.

Again: my purpose, apart from the pure ce, was to put the differing versions of the battle outcome together. If someone has feelings of due weight or feels that one of my rewordings misunderstood something, that's fine, but let's be specific and let's not go back to Headless Baba. I would appreciate a ping but anything that doesn't undo good English-language improvements is likely to be fine with me. I don't have a preferred version of events. Elinruby (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Its not about neutrality of the article, and I do not question your purpose. Its the flow of the article that is a mess because some editors added changes causing the before and after to not merge well together. Some sentences need to be moved to the right location or section. Since I am familiar with this subject that is why I was going to take a review and organize the article without reverting or eliminating anything that already exist. It will just be reorganizing the sentences. I will let you know so that you can review.Javerine (talk) 04:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Welp, I *think* I ordered the sentences chronologically. Which also makes it more neutral, imho, since there are competing versions of who won. But see disclaimer above, and I have not seen Kansas Bear's earlier version. I also have not evaluated or verified the sourcing, and literally don't have the time to do so. But assuming that none of the sources are discredited for whatever reason, if some say that the Sikhs won and others the Afghans, then yes it is a neutrality question, and strictly speaking we should do a study of whether there is a preponderance one way or the other. This gets little more complicated when it becomes a matter of which historic sources are considered reliable or neutral. If the edit you are proposing would eliminate a competing narrative, this would raise a red flag for me. Feel free to take it to the NPOV Noticeboard, but I am pretty sure they will tell you exactly that. Elinruby (talk) 06:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Elinruby, I think you have done an amazing job. What about:

• "The outcome of the battle is disputed. According to one account, Jahan Khan was surprised that the Afghan forces of Atai Khan had not arrived at the rendezvous point, and delayed his march. The Sikhs attacked and Afghan forces under Jahan Khan were overwhelmed by the Sikhs, and his soldiers retreated."

• "According to another account, Jahan Khan was nearly overwhelmed by Sikh forces until reinforcements from Haji Atai Khan arrived later during the battle. The Sikhs were defeated and many were massacred, while Jahan Khan achieved both a victory and the death of Baba Deep Singh."

We can move the "according to x" from sentences in the article and make them into notes which simply state per X historian/political scientist/historical researcher(which may or may not be needed at all). Thoughts on the paragraphs? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

sounds good to me. I wasn't sure how critical it was that the reinforcements were overdue. I think there were two other discrepances. Sourced statements for both sides being outnumbered and also for two different people killing Headless Baba Elinruby (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Javerine @Kansas Bear and @Elinruby for the amazing work you guys have done on the article and improving on it. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Result

I most recently changed the result because of WP:FRINGE, most of the sources cited agree that the Sikhs were defeated, and Jacques seems to be the outlying opinion.

Even the sources used to describe numbers in the battle agree on such, with some of the "cited content" to describe a Sikh victory stating it was an Afghan one mere pages later.

To show the sources:

Ganda Singh p.192 "The victorious forces pursued the Sikhs". [1]

Gupta: "The victorious army gave a close pursuit". [2]

+ what is already cited. Noorullah (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah21

Jacques isn't the only author that makes mention of the sikhs winning. There's also vivek chadha who also mentions that the Sikhs won the battle. We so far have 2 sources that corroborate that the Sikhs may have won the battle Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Vivek Chadha isn't a historian, he's a retired Lt Gen Colonel whose publications primarily revolve around modern day geopolitics and conflicts. His book that was cited here, includes only 20 pages about the Pre-Independence Period in Punjab, spanning from medieval times to the twentieth century. [3] None of the publications or corpus listed here indicates he's an eminent authority on history, let alone Sikh history. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

J.S Grewal, who is arguably the strongest source here, given that he's a qualified historian and his work was published by Cambridge University, says in p.91

Towards the end of 1757, the veteran Afghan General Jahan Khan, who was appointed by Ahmad Shah Abdali to assist his son Timur Shah in the administration of the province, was nearly overwhelmed by the Singhs before he was saved by the timely arrival of fresh Afghan contingents.

Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8 @Noorullah21

Guess that makes sense,thanks Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Twarikh. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2024

It Was Sikh Victory. The Afghans Fled After Jamal Khan Was Killed. They then regathered and then attacked again. 2605:8D80:521:66C5:108E:85A2:AAF4:F62B (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The majority of reliable sources mention an Afghan victory. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The Reliable Sources Does a have a black spot on various sources of their's. Sometimes a particular person doesnt want to make genuine citation so that its brings a shame towards a community. If its faded decision better mention its bothways or a disputed outcome. 2605:8D80:521:66C5:108E:85A2:AAF4:F62B (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Authenticity of sources

@Suthasianhistorian8

I decided to open a discussion rather than engage in an edit war. It also makes it more easier for me to explain my reasons as well. The Singh Brothers website has published works by other Historians in the past aswell such Dr Balwant Singh Dhillion and Surjit Singh Gandhi.So we know this publishing company has a history for publishing works written by Historians. Sangat Singhs book on the Sikhs isn't the only work he's written on History as he's also written a book on the Freedom movement of delhi. It could therefore be inferred that he not only did his M.A in history but also did his PHD in the same field as well.The gap between the M.A and PHD is somewhat unclear, however we have absolutely zero idea of what the circumstances were that resulted in a long gap between the two degrees.He also refers to himself as a "Historian" in one of the pages of the book. If you have evidence to suggest that he could potentially be lying of his credentials or that there is evidence of him not doing his PHD in history, then feel free to do so. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the front page catalog, it doesn't seem that Singh Brothers exclusively publishes historians' work, the book's lack of peer review and the publisher's nomenclature which suggests a proclivity to a pro Sikh narrative diminishes this work. You mentioned that this author wrote 2 history books, but he also wrote 3 books on Social Security and 1 on foreign policy, doesn't that make it more likely that his PhD was in economics or foreign policy? Also the fact that he calls himself a historian does not mean much, I've come across numerous authors who confer the title of "historian" upon themselves, not on the basis of educational background or tenure in an academic setting, but rather on their interest and being hobbyists. Bobby Singh Bansal, Amardeep Singh, Dr, Gopal Singh are such examples of "historians" being used as sources on Wikipedia. The publisher also describes precludes any historical work experience and rather emphasizes his expertise in foreign policy, as a Sinologist, warfare etc, all of which are tangential to history.

Perhaps @Sitush, an uninvolved editor, could provide his input? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Also this is besides the point, but in the future could you make sure to leave a space between a citation and the next sentence-[4], Twarikh? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'll make sure to do that. Thanks for pointing that out. @Southasianhistorian8 Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Adding on, the majority of scholarly sources point to it being an Afghan victory because the Sikhs were driven in the end.

Minority views would be WP:FRINGE.

Also for next time; Considering that there is a consensus of two editors (me and @Southasianhistorian8) it's best to go to the talk page rather then as you said, engage in an edit war, so good on you for starting the discussion. Noorullah (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Noorullah21 @Southasianhistorian8

Honestly based on your analysis I think as of now sangat singhs work shouldn't be used on the article. I haven't been able to come across any source that explicitly mentions him doing his PHD in history. If I'm able to come across any new info then I'll let you guys now. As of now keep the current result. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Twarikh. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)