This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
The info box claims the Sikh strength was only 23, however, the sources presented make it clear that the Guru's contingent was besieged by a larger force, forcing them to take refuge and fight strategically. Reinforcements arrived later on, which is when a full fledged battle took place. The info-box should reflect not just the besiegement part, but also the reinforcement numbers assuaging the Guru's side. Also what sources state the imperial (Pathan) side was 1,500?
A side note on Gandhi: He has not, to my knowledge, published a peer reviewed text in the span of his career. His works have been published only by Singh Bros and Atlantic Publishers. His work has been described as hagiographical(ish) by Dr. Purnima Dhavan, a scholar and a professor whose work has been published by Oxford University Press. She writes in her PhD dissertation: Surjit Singh Gandhi's Sikhs in the Eighteenth Century makes no attempt to address the issues raised by revisionist scholars of Sikh history like McLeod, JS Grewal, and Harjot Oberoi. Bhagat Singh and Surjit Singh Gandhi offer instead an account of Sikh heroes, martyrs, and warriors in the misal period....Such narratives reassert politically acceptable versions of Sikh history to their Punjabi public, and in their studied avoidance of more recent scholarly efforts refuse to acknolwedge the myriad ways in which modern political and religious assumptions and pressures shape the ways in which Sikh history is recreated in popular histories.[1] p.9. I'm not saying as of now that he's unreliable, but we should, at least, be somewhat prudent about the inclusion of his work in Wikipedia. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
historians differ on opinions amongst one another and Purnima herself has used Gandhi for her research work including referencing Gandhi's book for details. As long as historians or Anthropologist or Political science, sociologist have the credentials it is all reliable. Just my 2 cents. 71.199.124.67 (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you're block evading again. Secondly this has been discussed before, a work's inclusion as a reference or citation in a supposedly reliable book doesn't necessarily speak to its own reliability or credence. A lot of books cite Khafi Khan's work, it doesn't mean Khafi Khan himself, as a standalone source, is reliable, as an example. Surjit Singh Gandhi is a historian but his work has critiqued as discarding relevant, pertinent information brought up by modern scholarship, and being selective in its content to ingratiate the Punjabi public and adulate his side. I cant say he's completely unreliable, but I think if modern scholarship from more esteemed historians contradict or challenge his work, they should be given much more weightage. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot compare Khafi Khan, a chronicle from Mughal period with 20 and 21st century historians as as Surjit Singh Gandhi or Purnima Dhavan and others. Khafi Khan himself is carefully studied original source by historians to note for its reliability and unreliability content and used where applicable. Surjit Singh's work hasn't been considered irrelevant by any historian and Purnima Dhavan has opinionated about historian's more concentration towards Misal period and not challenged his work. That is not her words and even if that is what you perceive it as, it still doesn't give any weightage of one historian over the other. Pashaura Singh, McLeod, Meera Kaur, Jakobsh have been greatly criticized by modern historians but there opinion doesn't put more weight over the former. If there is a difference of opinion by historians on a specific battle, event or a subject then all opinions are to be included. As far as this page is concerned and the event, Surjit Gandhi's detail hasn't been questioned by any historian. If it is, then both opinions should be included with "According to....". 2601:547:B05:B92:3925:C1B8:E2BD:D17A (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surjit Singh Gandhi has not published any peer reviewed books. The nature and extent of his educational background is completely absent on the Internet or other books as far as I'm aware. He has been critiqued for relying on and asserting superannuated narratives. He is, without a doubt, one of the more obscure historians out there, and definitely not in the same league as as others such as Purnima Dhavan, JS Grewal, and McLeod. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
welcome your opinion and I am not sure if there are any peer reviewed books but if not, how does it matter? That doesn't fail WP:RS. His background is pretty well known as historian and is credited as known authority on the history of the Sikhs and "He served the Punjab Education Department for thirty-four years, first as a Senior Lecturer and then as a Principal." [2] And when historians like Purnima use and add contents directly from his books and also links his book for the readers to go through to get more detail, it makes Gandhi high up in the same league as other historians. 2601:547:B05:B92:3925:C1B8:E2BD:D17A (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The information on Gandhi is reiterated by Singh Bros, an unreliable publisher which may be prone to embellishing details about their associates. But what I think what was meant was that Surjit Singh Gandhi was the principal and lecturer in the Akal Degree College of Women [3] and [4]. If you take a look at the colleges' NAAC rating, they both have a B rating and the former branch had a B+ rating in the past. While these are fairly decent ratings, they're not particularly outstanding and they don't carry much name recognition. So to end things, Gandhi is somewhat reliable, but we should be somewhat prudent and take Dhavan's criticism of him into consideration while dealing with his work. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an article on an historian, then any criticism or opinions by other historians can be included such as under section "Criticism" on that specific page. Rankings of historians or colleges isn't considered for its reliability or unreliability as long as the sources and authors are truly accredited in the subject and area. And lastly, sure any criticism from any historian about any historian should be taken into consideration only if its dispute over a specific subject matter where you can then have two different views shown to the readers. But that is not the case here in regards to Battle of Kiratpur. 71.60.35.105 (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_without_national_boundaries.svg)