Jump to content

Talk:Jagjit Singh Aurora

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I think this article has too much information that is already in other articles, namely about the politics surrounding the formation of Bangladesh, the article should focus on General Aurora and link to other articles for the superflous information. DigiBullet 17:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced article out

[edit]

Its true 90,000 pakistanis were captured but only about 45,000 were troops, others were civil workers. Not many people know this.

POV Check

[edit]

I know nothing about General Singh Aurora and very little about the events surrounding the 1971 conflict between India and Pakistan. However, this article seems to be discussing the general as a great national hero and definitely does not seem to be written from a neutral point of view. We need to have someone on the Pakistani side to balance this out. — DanMS 21:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Pakistanis don't want to talk much about the war or the surrender. Also this General was not a very controversial one unlike others. And many good things have been said about the way he treated the POWs after their surrender. so I'll have to remove the POV tag since there's not dispute. Idleguy 15:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I too was a bit concerned about the point of view but alot of literature written seems to be written in simular language also there isn't much what is written on the Pakistani side (which is credible and neutral).

Aurora?

[edit]

His last name is Aurora? Isn't that an unusual last name? Why that name, were his ancestors astronomers or something? --AW 17:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? I'm serious --AW 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: No the surname Aurora is an Indian caste found mainly in Hinduisim and Sikhi (which Gen. Aurora is,) to break it down basically they are considered traditionally to be Business Men/Merchants but as being a Sikh the idea of Caste was "offially" rejected under the belief that everyone is equal under god (un-offically people usually are still based on caste) having said that Gen. Aurora seemed to have taken up a traditionally un-othodox profession having a militrary life, but then again Sikhs have had a tradition of joining the militrary (a key example is Sikhs make 2% of India's population, but out of the 29 Infantry Regiments 2 regiments are dedicated only to Sikhs [the Sikh Regiment & the Sikh Light Infantry)]and government positions. Hope that answers the question and any followup questions.

Well, I'm afraid you haven't answered this question: Why is the letter u sometimes inserted as the second letter of his name, and sometimes not? The name transliterated directly from Panjabi script is Arora. The interpolated letter u apparently has no basis in the original Panjabi spelling. Somebody has been going around inserting the u into this guy's name, but inconsistently. Unless someone comes up with a really good reason for the spelling with u (in which case all instances of the name, including the title of this article, should be changed to include it), then the u should be deleted everywhere to maintain consistent data.
Could it be that the chance phonetic resemblance to an English word has led some to believe that the spelling of the Panjabi name ought to be changed to that of the completely unrelated English word? Say it ain't so. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one here has offered any explanation for how the letter -u- got inserted into his name. Was it the general's own wish to spell his name like that? Or did he spell it without the -u-? I've searched and searched, but found zero information on this question. Anyway, as previously discussed, I'm deleting the -u- everywhere in the body of the text, so as not to puzzle readers who wonder why his name seems randomly to have two different spellings with no rhyme or reason. (Except in the direct quote from a news story, which will at least make readers wonder why journalists have spelled it that way). Thanks! Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 22:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For background on the origin of the name, see [1].

The word 'Arora' means one belonging to the ancient city of 'Aror' situated on the banks of the river Indus in the northwestern part of the Sindh province of Pakistan.

Of course, what really matters for our purpose is which spelling the general himself preferred. Looking around, everywhere he's mentioned, the two spellings are found jumbled together. The one indication I've been able to find is from the most famous moment in his life, the 1971 instrument of surrender. He signed his name as "Jagjit Singh," but left off his last name. However, the typist of that document spelled it "Aurora" under the general's signature, and apparently he didn't object to it. That means we probably can't just delete the u out of hand. To sum it all up: I just don't know what to make of this question! All I know is that this Wikipedia article needs to include both spellings for completeness's sake, and ideally a section ought to be added explaining why there are two spellings in use, if anyone can be found who can explain it. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The image File:1971 surrender.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jagjit Singh Aurora. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jagjit_Singh_Aurora&oldid=1243616383"