Talk:Karam Singh

Untitled
When did he die?86.141.123.58 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lance Naik
Why is his rank given as Lance Naik, when he was retired as Honorary Captain?84.23.155.84 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Honorary Ranks in the Indian Army are typically given after retirement. I have not been able to find any information about what rank he retired at etc.Myopia123 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

World War II service
G'day, nice work on the article so far. I have one suggestion. Currently there doesn't seem like there is much information about this soldier's service during World War II other than the Military Medal. For instance, could it be mentioned which regiment he served in, and in what theatres (e.g. did he serve in North Africa, Italy, or Burma, or somewhere else?). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment. I've personally tried finding more information about his WW2 service but unsuccessful so far. Also, the citation mentions he served in Burma. Thanks! Myopia123 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I've added it to the article now. Do you think it should mention the 11th Sikhs also? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of citation section "Military Medal"
Thanks for your contributions. I see that you've reverted my edit that removed the content you added as the Citation of Military Medal. Here is the explanation for my action: The content that you've added is not basically the citation of the award. By definition citation is a "note accompanying an award, describing the reasons for it". Your text just is to refer that the subject has been awarded Military Medal, that's it, nothing more that that. "The KING has been graciously pleased to approve the following awards on recognition of gallant and distinguished services in Burma" is common liner for all the recipients during the war for their action in Burma, nothing specific. If you think that this rationale satisfies your query, please revert your action. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Citation' has multiple definitions, one of which is: "mention of a soldier or a unit in orders, usually for gallantry" and another is "any award or commendation, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty, especially a formal letter or statement recounting a person's achievements". Both the Param Vir Chakra citation (which describes the action) and the Military Medal text meet the definition in their own ways. Apart from that, I see no reason to remove the MM citation and I also feel that it adds to the value obtained from reading the article. I feel it should stay. Myopia123 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the point that Citation has multiple definitions, Military Medal text satisfies it. But there is no point in mentioning about the entire announcement, with a quote box and all, when there is nothing specific for the subject, like it is for Param Vir Chakra. Also it has already been mentioned in the second section that "during the Burma Campaign of World War II, he was awarded the Military Medal", with the same London Gazzette as reference. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Military Medal is a significant achievement and Karam Singh is (to my knowledge) the only person to have received both the PVC and MM. I.e. he has received awards both from the Monarch of the UK and the President of India. Not only does the citation add value but removing would not give sufficient weight to his achievement. My vote is for it to stay.Myopia123 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course yes, Karam Singh has a distinguished achievement to his name. Section 2 already has a mention about this, again in Section 3 you're just presenting it in a different way, with the all details of the reference, which is not required for an encyclopedia. For example, "printed in The London Gazette on 18 May 1944" is like mention of "Publisher name" and "Publication date". Again "No. 22356 Sepoy Karam Singh, 11th Sikh Regiment, Indian Army"; these details are already there. I feel that this is just duplication of content. Anyways, I am pinging, who reviewed the article for Good article assessment. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * PVC citation also states 'Gazette Notification: 2 Pres/50, 21.6.50'. If the issue is duplication of content, my vote is to remove all other references and keep the citation of the MM. Myopia123 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. But the case for PVC is different. It has a specific citation for the subject, which explains the action of Karam Singh during the battle. In the case MM, there is no such thing. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 00:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging again, and also the Lead coord of MilHis Project, . Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If there was more context in the citation (i.e. about why it was presented), I'd say keeping it would add something. But without this, I'm not so sure that it adds much, to be honest. Having said that, it's not a major warstoper for me, though, and I don't think it diminishes the article to include the MM citation if there is consensus for that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything to add, as Rupert suggested. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel his comments add to what I said. The only valid issue I can see is duplication of information, in which case remove inline mention and keep citation. That is my firm position on this matter. Myopia123 (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please be clear on what do you "remove inline mention and keep citation". I am confused with this phrase, are you referring to the award's citation or citation to a sentence (i.e. a reference)? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You raised the issue of duplication of information. The only place I feel it is worth mentioning is the Military Medal citation. Any other mentions in the article can be removed. The matter is now closed as far as I am concerned.Myopia123 (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced with the argument. If you carefull observe Rupert's comment, it says that if it had context on why it was presented, it would add something to the article, otherwise it a mere duplication on lines. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And I am not convinced with yours. I have observed that you have been arbitrarily editing a lot of articles that I have put quite some effort in. Now I am going to state my position for the last time. Also, you are repeating the same point over and over. If the issue is duplication, the proper place to keep MM is the official citation. You may remove all other places it is mentioned in the article. This is my firm and final position. Myopia123 (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please explain on "you have been arbitrarily editing a lot of articles that I have put quite some effort in". I'm repeating my point because it is valid, why do you want to keep the MM's citation when it adds nothing, it is just expanding the reference to the fact that the subject has received MM. In case of further disagreement, it is best to request a third opinion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You removed sourced info without summary or explanation. You have changed reasons to "value" from "duplication". If the issue is that citation does not fit how you, personally, want the article to look, then that is not valid reason to remove it. It is sourced information included by me at only one point in the article. In an encyclopedia, all sourced information has value. Therefore, my position is that it stays. If the issue is value, then it does have value. If the issue is duplication, I have no objection to removing OTHER mentions of the MM and keeping the citation. Myopia123 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Notified relevant WikiProjects (India and Military history). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason or justification for this material, all we need is a mention he was awarded it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I also see no real value in keeping the citation either. Move the footnote used there to the line in the Military career section about him earning the medal, since it's formatted better, and interested readers can follow the source to the citation if they're so inclined. Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with the previous two editors; the MM citation adds nothing to the existing mention of the award in the military career. Unlike the PVC citation, it has no details about the action for which it was awarded. Zawed (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Came here via Milhist. If we had the actual citation, explaining what he got the MM for, that would be a different matter. But we don't, this is just the formal announcement of the award in the Gazette. It doesn't add anything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * From the above the comments, it is evident that "MM Citation" doesn't add anything to the article. Kindly do the needful. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Myopia seems to be away, so I have removed the material. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Social
What is karam singh act of bravery 2401:4900:3315:975C:ADDF:E750:6956:F5B3 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)