Talk:Battle of Akora Khattak

(Comments)
The Ghazis were led by Allahbakhsh Khan and the assault was delivered in the early hours of the morning of 21 December, 1826, when the Sikhs lay fast asleep in the intense cold. In the first onslaught many Sikhs were killed. Budh Singh immediately organised his troops in battle array and fell upon the Ghazis, and repulsed them. They left the field and retired into the hills. Budh Singh had won his spurs.

Acc to Hari Gupta Ram the Battle of Akora was actually a Sikh Victory since the Sikhs were Able to Repulse the Attack and the Afghans fled to the Mountains can I please get a Explanation how this Battle is a Afghan Victory? 2003:DE:A707:7B8F:96BA:7A85:6189:1A6B (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * References are provided, and Hari Gupta already mentioned that "Budh Singh did not follow up his victory." and as mentioned in the references, many other historians also stated the victory for Afghans. Sikh casualties were five times greater than those of the local Afghans, and Afghans looted the entire Sikh camp.  Kamal Afghan01 (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * They are very poor cites, as we do not use raw links, see wp:cite. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This article is completely wrong with wrong result in info box. The source says that Budh Singh repulsed the attack and after victory, he did not pursue the retreating Afghans. Below is information from the source that is on the article itself. Here is the source link, page 161. . Also there were only 4000, not 4000+ and the Sikh causality was only 500, not 500 to 700. This is what the source says:
 * The Battle of Akora, 21 December, 1826
 * Akora was an important place 18 km from Attock across River Indus. It was inhabited mostly by Khatak Afghans. Najaf Khan was their chief. When the Sikhs captured Peshawar, he had fled into the hills. At this time Budh Singh Sandhanwalia, was stationed at Akora with ‘’’about 4,000 men’’’. The Sayyid organized his forces and got ready for a night assault. The Sayyid's forces consisted of Hindustanis, the Kandharis, Yusafzais and Khataks. The Ghazis were led by Allahbakhsh Khan and the assault was delivered in the early hours of the morning of 21 December, 1826, when the Sikhs lay fast asleep in the intense cold. In the first onslaught many Sikhs were killed. ‘’’Budh Singh immediately organised his troops in battle array and fell upon the Ghazis, and repulsed them. They left the field and retired into the hills. Budh Singh had won his spurs, but did not follow up his victory.’’’ About 500 Sikhs were killed in all, while the Sayyid lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna and their commander Allahbakhsh Khan. The Sayyid shifted his headquarters to Sitana at the foot of Mahaban mountains on the western side of the Indus in the heart of Yusafzais.
 * This above info provides the battle and aftermath and this source link is also on the article so not sure why the article was written with false information. 2600:1016:B00D:A313:7485:D822:2796:A2F4 (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Sock. Abecedare (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Corrections needed on Battle of Akora Khattak
The article is completely wrong with wrong result in info box. Page needs to be corrected. The source says that Budh Singh repulsed the attack and after victory, he did not pursue the retreating Afghans. Below is information from the source that is on the article itself. Here is the source link, page 161. . Also there were only 4000, not 4000+ and the Sikh causality was only 500, not 500 to 700. This is what the source says:

The Battle of Akora, 21 December, 1826 Akora was an important place 18 km from Attock across River Indus. It was inhabited mostly by Khatak Afghans. Najaf Khan was their chief. When the Sikhs captured Peshawar, he had fled into the hills. At this time Budh Singh Sandhanwalia, was stationed at Akora with ‘’’about 4,000 men’’’. The Sayyid organized his forces and got ready for a night assault. The Sayyid's forces consisted of Hindustanis, the Kandharis, Yusafzais and Khataks. The Ghazis were led by Allahbakhsh Khan and the assault was delivered in the early hours of the morning of 21 December, 1826, when the Sikhs lay fast asleep in the intense cold. In the first onslaught many Sikhs were killed. ‘’’Budh Singh immediately organised his troops in battle array and fell upon the Ghazis, and repulsed them. They left the field and retired into the hills. Budh Singh had won his spurs, but did not follow up his victory.’’’ About 500 Sikhs were killed in all, while the Sayyid lost 36 Hindustanis and 46 Kandharis, including Maulvi Baqar Ali of Patna and their commander Allahbakhsh Khan. The Sayyid shifted his headquarters to Sitana at the foot of Mahaban mountains on the western side of the Indus in the heart of Yusafzais.

The corrections needs to be made to info box with Sikh Victory and the battle and aftermath needs corrected. 2600:1016:B00D:A313:7485:D822:2796:A2F4 (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * We also seem to have other sources that say they lost. I am removing it until we can decide which it is. Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Other sources do not make any mention of loss either. And some others just completely fail to provide any sort of verification and are unreliable. Only book by acclaimed historian Hari Ram Gupta provides detail info in his book which I showed earlier. Previous editor said that because Budh Singh didn’t follow up on his victory, he considers this an Afghan victory. It just makes no sense. 2600:1016:B00D:A313:7485:D822:2796:A2F4 (talk) 13:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Sock. Abecedare (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Note I have objected to the claim that this was an Afgan victory, and no one has argued otherwise, people need to read wp:consensus. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

And the passage from 100 great Muslims

"In India, the doctrine was introduced by Syed Ahmed Barelvi, who had adopted its puritan views during his pilgrimage to Holy cities in 1822. He established a centre at Patna and acquired a large following. He undertook Jihad (Holy war) against the tyranny of Sikhs on the Muslims in the Frontier provinces and liberated most of the province from the Sikh Yoke but ultimately he was killed through a conspiracy of his own men who led the Sikh army through a secret route behind the Muslim lines at Balakot in 1831. Hisdisciple Titoo Mir, started the Mowahhid movement in lower Bengal."

I see no mention of this battle. Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Result of the Battle
The result of the battle is not correct and there is sufficient information provided by historian Hari Ram Gupta on it. From page 161, Hari Ram Gupta mentions that Historian has given more detail on the battle and this information needs to be included in the article and the result of the battle should be corrected. 71.60.35.187 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The Encyclopaedia of Islam (already cited) states that Mujahedeen repulsed the Sikhs. Altaf Qadir, who also gives detailed account of war, states same. On the other hand, Hari Gupta's statement suggests that the first battle and the one with Budh Singh were two different events. It is also notable that Sikh casualties were far higher than that of Mujahedeen. If anything, it goes against the sources with higher scholarly value and so there is no reason to change the result, unless there are WP:RS stating that the battle was a Sikh victory. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the IP is a sockpuppet of HauhgtonBright-. He frequently trolls using IPs that geolocate to Pennslyvania or various proxies. I'd recommend just filing an SPI or getting an admin to block him. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You had a run in with him before-. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Debate is not about the number of casualties. Hari Ram Gupta does suggest it is same battle because Budh Singh was present in the battle and because of the attack by Sikhs, the Ghazis left the battle field and retired. Now because of conflict with other books about the result, the result should be shown as disputed and shown as such with maybe with its own section as to why the result is disputed by stating what each book states. Statement of all books are necessary. I think that is fair conclusion. 2601:547:B02:4AB0:A18D:68A6:DF99:934F (talk) 10:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Source? Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Source is Book is viewable here  2601:547:B02:B5B9:4095:6DE9:E74B:648D (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The suggested text is a straight copy and paste, and thus is a copyright violation. Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the text was just to show what was written in the source. But the actual suggested text that should be included in the article is this 2601:547:B02:B5B9:850B:9DE4:75E:864C (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a result, at best we could say "inconclusive" as we seem to have a disagreement among sources as to who won. Slatersteven (talk) 12:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * yes you are right, the result should be inconclusive. Because of conflict with other books about the result, the result should be shown as disputed or inconclusive and shown as such with maybe with its own section as to why the result is disputed by stating what each book states. Statement of all books are necessary. I think that is fair conclusion. 2601:547:B02:B5B9:850B:9DE4:75E:864C (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually "disputed (see text")" is better. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * definitely 2601:547:B02:B5B9:850B:9DE4:75E:864C (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Does any source other than Hari Gupta calls it a Sikh victory? Hari Gupta's focus is on Sikh history, which means we need sources which have made a neutral assessment of the battle. See WP:BIASED
 * Otherwise we cannot change the result on the basis of single source, when majority of references describe a different outcome. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the sources says the battle was a month earlier, hardly therefore an RS. The other source harldey looks neutral itself. Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The source was Encyclopaedia of Islam, although cited in bad format. The date of the battle does seem to be disputed, as well as the battlefield.
 * Regardless, I have replaced it with ones published by Princeton University Press and Harvard University Press, both of which too describe battle as victory for Ahmed Barelvi. Unless sources of same scholarly value are provided which describe it as otherwise, I don't think calling it "disputed" or "indecisive" has any merit. Sutyarashi (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Or they are different battles? Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No they do refer to same battle. All sources mention that it occurred in November or December of 1826, and that it was first battle between Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi and the Sikhs. Altaf Qadir and Hari Gupta provide its relatively detailed account as well.
 * However, the exact site of the battle is indeed disputed. Though most sources state it to have happened at Akora Khattak. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sutyarashi Hari Ram Gupta is a renowned historian and his merit has never been of question and has been widely used on Wikipedia. The sources associated with the result such as by Altaf Qadar is a book written from Pakhtun point of view so this itself loses its merit of a WP:RS. The other source by Barbara Daly Metcalf gives the date of November 1826 which is different than what is on the article and such historians instead of research, tend to borrow sources from others like she borrowed this certain line from Rafiuddin Ahmed, also attributed his name on this book here . This book too has exact same line mentioned by Rafiuddin Ahmed and this same line was borrowed by few others as their primary source.  Coming to source by Waleed Ziad, he doesn't mention anything about Akora Khattak or date or any detail that can give better understanding of the battle. All he says Eventually, with support from Yusufzais and other clans, Sayyid Ahmad's Mujhahidin managed to defeat the Sikh armies at Attock in December 1826. What battle is this? Different? Its very clear that the result is disputed and should shown be as such. Please add the suggested text with attrubution to Hari Ram Gupta's source and also create a Dispute section with all significant views by historians. 2601:547:B02:B5B9:850B:9DE4:75E:864C (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Either Hari Gupta is an RS we can use (and thus there is a dispute within RS, who have studied the battle and written about it in-depth) or it is not. Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is not his reliability, rather that he is the only one who states the battle to be a Sikh victory. Thus, if IP wants to change the result, they should provide additional and if possible, higher quality academic sources in support of their claim. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Which many of the other sources seem to disagree on even the date of the battle, they can't be used to ignore one of the few in-depth analyses of the battle. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He has described this battle in a single paragraph, before moving to the next battles of Sikhs. I doubt that this can be characterized as "in-depth analyses of the battle".
 * can you just provide additional sources for your claim? Sutyarashi (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hari Ram has given more than enough information from historian point of view in a section completely dedicated to the battle as compared to one liners by other sources. I have not looked into additional sources as of yet due to busy schedule. 2601:547:B02:B5B9:3DE8:BF60:3D4E:5144 (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why write "Hari Gupta provide its relatively detailed account as well."? Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You had proposed the article for deletion. I wrote it in sense that the battle is significant enough to have a main article for it, as reliable sources exist mentioning it. Hari Gupta is included as well.
 * However, whether we can use just his source as authoritative statement to dispute the result, is another issue. The fact that all sources agree on Sikh casualties being multiple times higher should not be ignored as well. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per wp:n " if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic" if its not an RS it can't be used to establish notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)