Talk:Second siege of Anandpur

Spreading false information
Hlo sir please read about Indian history. You are spreading false information on Indian history. Your edits are inappropriate please verify them before editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aradhyasharma (talk • contribs) 02:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

What the sources state
According to Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E, ed. Tony Jaques, page 49, "Imperial troops were repulsed in northern Punjab at Basoli and Anandpur, and Emperor Aurangzeb sent Generals Wazir Khan and Zaberdast Khan to besiege Sikh Guru Gobind Singh in his stronghold at Anandpur, northeast of Ludhiana. Facing starvation, the Guru capitulated in return for safe passage, but the Sikhs were treacherously attacked at the Sarsa(20 May - 20 December 1704)". Seeing how the Sikhs capitulated, then the Mughals won this siege. I would suggest Aradhyasharma stop edit warring and bring his concerns here. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir the battle took place at Anandpur in 1701 .Jagatullah gujar leader was killed see in the source. Please take prompt action. Shah439 (talk) 05:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed the article myself sir no it is your responsibility to secure itShah439 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Shah439 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed the article myself sir no it is your responsibility to secure itShah439 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Shah439 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Source clearly says it occured in 1704, also source indicates it was a Mughal victory. Xtremedood (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit by Shah439
Shah439 is there any reason why you have resorted to a claim that is not supported by any academic source that I have researched? Are you willing to provide legitimate sources? What you are doing seems to amount to vandalism. Xtremedood (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sir i have some sources of the battle which claim that it was a Sikh victory.106.192.155.216 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The user Shah439 was an account created against Wikipedia policies and has been found vandalising the articles. The user has been permanently blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longlastingpeace (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources of the article
1) 2) 106.192.155.216 (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Article mismatches with the Result of the battle
Sir article has been mismatched with the reference of the battle. It was the battle between Sikhs and Hilly rajas there is no reference of Siege.this was not a siege .See other references also ghumand Chand, jagatullah Chand is not shown in your reference no. 1 which claims the mughals Victory. Change the date if the article also. I m posting some references of the battle also go through them also don't rely on single article Australianammu (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Marking for deletion
This article is completely misleading as no such battle took place at all in history. It is widely known that Battle of Anadpur took place (wikipedia page already renamed from first battle of Anandpur) and then the next battle that took place was battle of Nirmohgarh and then battle of Chamkaur took place where respected Guruji wrote Zafarnama and declared victory over Mughal forces. The user Shah439 along with his duplicate accounts have already been blocked for spreading misinformation. I'm marking this page for speedy deletion. Sohcb8 (talk)

Need amendment
Ghumand leader, jagatullah. Please change the name of the battle It should be the battle of Anandpur 1701... Necessary action to be taken Ama975193 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Clarification
According to Dictionary of Battles and Sieges: A-E, ed. Tony Jaques, page 49, "Imperial troops were repulsed in northern Punjab at Basoli and Anandpur, and Emperor Aurangzeb sent Generals Wazir Khan and Zaberdast Khan to besiege Sikh Guru Gobind Singh in his stronghold at Anandpur, northeast of Ludhiana. Facing starvation, the Guru capitulated in return for safe passage, but the Sikhs were treacherously attacked at the Sarsa(20 May - 20 December 1704)". Seeing how the Sikhs capitulated, then the Mughals won this siege.

Also, according to Tony Jaques, there were two battles at Anandpur in 1704, which one does the article reflect?

There was a battle of Anandpur in 1700(Jaques,p.48);
 * "In a fresh offensive against the Sikhs of the northern Punjab, Emperor Aurangzeb sent 10,000 men under Painda Khan and Dina Beg, who joined forces with the hill Chiefs led by Raja Ajmer Chand of Bilaspur. In the course of a long action near Anandpur, northeast of Ludhiana, Painda Khan was killed—reputedly in single combat by Guru Gobind Singh—and the Imperial army fled to Ropar."

There was another battle of Anandpur in 1701(Jaques,p.48-49);
 * "The hill Rajas of the northern Punjab regrouped after defeat at Anandpur the previous year and resumed their campaign against Sikh Guru Gobind Singh, joining forces with Gujar tribesmen to besiege Anandpur, northeast of Ludhiana. Gujar leader Jagatullah was killed on the first day and the Rajas were driven off after a brilliant defence led by the Guru’s son Ajit Singh."

And this, Bhagat Lakshman Singh, (1995). Short Sketch of the Life and Work of Guru Govind Singh, The Tenth and Last Guru, does not appear to be a reliable source.

I would say this article needs to be re-written, since it is largely unreferenced or referenced by an unreliable source. Oh, and Jagatullah was killed in 1701, so I seriously doubt he was fighting a battle in 1704! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The sources do not state that it was Mughal victory nor that there was any surrender. There was an agreement which was broken by the Mughals and then the later battle ensued in a different location after all the civilians and survivors left Anandpur. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 16:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * If you do not know what the word, "capitulated", means then you should not be editing Wikipedia. Continue edit warring and you will be reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * please follow Wikipedia Be civil policy when having a discussion on talk page. I was looking at page 914. But I did eventually see referenced page after downloading book. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Spare me your supposed concern for Wikipedia policies when you restored original research, edit warred OR back into the article, and act like you do not know what capitulate means. And this after being told to go to the talk page! If you have a problem with this, then contact an admin! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making it obvious that your opinion doesn't matter from the kind of personal views you carry.134.195.198.201 (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Says the editor that was writing OR into the article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not OR. Nope. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 19:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)


 * "The sources do not state that it was Mughal victory nor that there was any surrender. There was an agreement which was broken by the Mughals and then the later battle ensued in a different location after all the civilians and survivors left Anandpur."- the Mughals were indeed victorious in their besiegement of the town, and . A siege is the "surrounding and blockading of a city, town, or fortress by an army attempting to capture it" "often with a focus on attrition". A siege could also be a negotiated surrender of a stronghold without any fighting taking place under the threat of immediate assault. See . Hence, it was a Mughal victory. Kamhiri (talk) 02:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Never mind, just realized the IP was blocked, unsurprising.Kamhiri (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Siege of Anandpur.jpg

Strength
User: CanadianSingh1469 please provide the link for Grewal's book page 166, this figure is more than likely a figurative/metaphorical figure of speech and not a literal number. I'm not inclined to take this at face value. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have a hard copy. I can provide a quote. Also read the other source which says the number. It is pretty literal. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * “Aurangzeb was worried to hear all this from Raja Bhim Chand. The Mughal army of 10 lakh soldiers was ordered to march against the Guru. Anandpur was besieged by the combined armies of the hill chiefs and the emperor. There were only 4,000 Singhs in Anandpur, but they were determined to fight,” CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, please do provide a quote, the other sources in the infobox are either self published sources see or a Raj-era source. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey I have provided the quote already. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, although I'm a bit skeptical, I'll have to concur for now, maybe I'll buy the book and ascertain its context as this seems a figure of speech. I still maintain my concerns over the 2 other sources (see above). Thank you for providing the quote by the way. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome. We should keep the figure for now right? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay. If you want any more quotes from the book feel free to ask. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable and reliable sources
We need to rewrite this article based off reliable sources, I excluded Surjit Singh Gandhi for now as he may be a point of contention which may need more input from other users. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I think old sources like Max Arthur should still be used but mostly in moderation. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Also Amardeep S. Dahiya is reliable. There are reviews of his work on JSTOR. See  I don’t know what your basis is for dismissing him. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Suthasianhistorian8 CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless, they're pre-eminent historians, I don't think we should use older sources or use them sparingly (I believe Khazan Singh's work is more than 100 years old at this point). Amardeep Dahiya is not a historian, and the JSTOR review you linked is based on his book "Four Fingers and Seventeen Nails", which according to Google Books is "A Selection Of Seventeen Short Stories About The Metamorphosing Cocktail Of Modern, Materialistic West Versus The Spiritualistic, Value-Based, Superstitious East. The Stories Incorporate The Element Of Chance, The Fickleness Of Life And The Twists And Turns Of Fate, Which Make Losers Overnight Winners, And Vice Versa."- not about history. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * About Max Arthur from his wikipedia page, "He was educated at Newcastle School, Limerick, and Springfield College. He attended Queen's College Galway between 1857 and 1863, being awarded junior scholarships in the Literary Division of the Arts Faculty for 1857–58, 1858–59, and 1859–60. He was awarded a B.A. degree with first class honours in Modern Languages in 1860. He obtained a senior scholarship in Ancient Classics for 1860-1, and a senior scholarship in Modern Languages and History for 1861-62. He also served as Secretary of the college's Literary and Debating Society for the 1860–61 session" So I think it is okay if we use Max Arthur although in moderation. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't done much research on him, but if he is a preeminent historian, I guess we could- but always with attribution.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is fine. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pritpal Singh's book is just a translation of Guru Kian Sakhian by Prof. Piara Singh Padam so we can use that as a source in substitute of Pritpal Singh's work. Piara Singh Padam is cited by many authors. Some quick information on Piara Singh Padam From CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding McAuliffe, I'd recommend asking other, neutral parties for input or perhaps opening an RFC, I'm indifferent towards his inclusion but even if we did both agree, we might still be running afoul of Wikipedia's policies. Regarding Pritpal Singh, his work is an English translation of Piara Singh Padam's editing and revising of older Bhatt Vahis work (suggesting that the base of his book is even older than traditional Raj era sources). Per the Guru Kian Saakhiyan foreword "Gum Kian Sakhian is said to be largely based on the Bhatt Vahis which its author has got from his ancestors. Originally, he wrote it in Bhattakhri, a peculiar form of Devanagari without vowel symbols. In 1868 Chhajju Singh, a descendant of the author converted it into Gurmukhi. However, its original in Bhattakhri and its second version in Gurmukhi are no more extant, which puts a big question mark on the very origin of this document. The present version in circulation is a copy which Giani Garja Singh has made from another copy which was in possession of Sant Gurdit Singh of village Dabwali Malko Ki, near Malout. The published version is based on the copy edited by Giani Garja Singh, which in turn has again been revised and re-edited by Piara Singh Padam in 1986". Hence, it would be unreliable and much too old to use. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we should draw conclusion on Guru Ki Sakhian’s reliability. It is used extensively by many authors including J.S Grewal in his books. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Books often cite a large corpus of other sources, including primary sources. However, you're free to request input from other users if you feel otherwise. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia’s policy on primary sources, “ Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.” So we could use them CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:35, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy on older sources, “With regard to historical events, older reports (closer to the event, but not too close such that they are prone to the errors of breaking news) tend to have the most detail, and are less likely to have errors introduced by repeated copying and summarizing. However, newer secondary and tertiary sources may have done a better job of collecting more reports from primary sources and resolving conflicts, applying modern knowledge to correctly explain things that older sources could not have, or remaining free of bias that might affect sources written while any conflicts described were still active or strongly felt.” So using older sources is fine especially if they are from reliable authors such as the ones being discussed. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * CS1469, as I've said, I think you should take this up with other neutral parties or open up a RSN, I'm not particularly experienced in this area, and thus am probably not the most appropriate authority to determine without error what sources are acceptable or to what extent they can be used. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will open a WP:3O CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that Guru Ki Sakhian was written in 1790 according to J.S Grewal CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: If more input is needed on the reliability of particular sources, checking the archives of the reliable sources noticeboard to see if these sources have been discussed there, and opening a discussion about them there if not, will get much better input than a single third opinion. I would very much recommend that instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * None of the sources are mentioned in the archive from what I can tell. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then I'd definitely recommend asking about these there. You'll get input from people who are used to evaluating how reliable a source is, and that should be very informative on how to proceed from there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Infobox edit warring
The page has been fully protected for 4 days due to edit warring. Rather than edit warring, please discuss these changes, develop consensus, and seek help resolving the dispute if needed. Getting a third opinion may be helpful. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)


 * HaughtonBrit, there is a difference between citing a source and reiterating/recounting what a historical account said. Such controversial claims such as 1 million soldiers being involved in this siege (which is an obvious figure of speech) can be in the body of the article with attribution to Koer Singh, but not in the infobox. See MOS for military conflict infoboxes--Information in the infobox should not be "controversial". Refer the reader to an appropriate section in the article or leave the parameter blank rather than make an unsubstantiated or doubtful claim.
 * Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * i agree Daniel Quinlan. Daniel, the sources clearly state the numbers and no where does it mention anything controversial so I do not see any reason behind removing such figure. Even 100,000 figure and it’s sources shouldn’t be removed as they back such numbers. There is absolutely nothing controversial here so figure should remain in the info box with possibly attribution if needed. 2600:1016:B015:24AD:654B:661D:15D:AD8F (talk) 11:47, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * To 3O provider, please see my rationale here . Also the IP claims the 100,000 figure in the infobox is supported by reliable sources, which is false as Saggu's Battle tactics and war manoeuvres of the Sikhs is a self published source and Saggu is not a historian, but rather a retired Air Force officer and the IP already concured it was an unreliable source here, yet is now claiming it's fine. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction, I concur that Saggu’s source is unreliable and that is why I removed it
 * but it was reverted back. My earlier comment was in reference to reliable source by Grewal where I made a typo of stating 100,000 instead of 10,00,000. 2600:1016:B015:24AD:E064:5138:16DD:92B2 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: I concur that the strength figure isn't reliable. Both sides appear to agree that Saggu is unreliable, and the other two sources appear to be either figurative (the first one says 1:100 which isn't exact enough to say 1 million which assumes the defenders have the upper bound estimate) or doubt it (the Oxford quote encases the figure in quotes). Aaron Liu (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks . Should the 1 million figure in the infobox be removed? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Probably. Also, since Saggu is unreliable, have alternative sources been found for all of this article's claims yet? Even the date cites it as a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll have to check both Saggu's and Sagoo's (not the same person, the latter is more reliable) works to see where the other numbers in the infobox come from as both of them are used as citations. Thanks for the help Aaron. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see. You're welcome. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

100,000 Mughal Soldiers (Professor Shiv Gajrani)
Paragraph from book Guru Gobind Singh by History professor Shiv Gajrani.I have the book handy and can upload the picture of the page if needed but please give instruction on how to do so.

The news of the campaign against the Guru spread throughout the land. Consequently, bands of Sikh disciples started arriving in Anandpur from different directions. Before any fight took place Guru Gobind Singh had about 10,000 men. However, they were not well equipped. On the other hand, the Mughal army was consisted of over a hundred thousand well-equipped men. Moreover, they were accustomed to fighting and could face the troubles and hardships of war. But there was a divided house. They were, though nominally, under two or three commanders but they looked to their respective leader for taking the initiative. In this respect, the Guru and his men were at an advantage. 2601:547:B05:23AA:9920:68A2:362F:68F4 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide a picture of the page and the one immediately after. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you give instruction on how and where to upload it? 2601:547:B05:23AA:9920:68A2:362F:68F4 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I see an option. Let me see if it works. 2601:547:B05:23AA:9920:68A2:362F:68F4 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I clicked on images and media icon but it doesn't allow to upload without an account (needs to be logged in). Any option you can think of? 2601:547:B05:23AA:9920:68A2:362F:68F4 (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Upload with your account (whichever one you want Javerine, MehmoodS, HaughtonBrit etc). Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Those accounts are not mine. If I had an account I would have. Let me create one. Give me few mins. 2601:547:B05:23AA:9920:68A2:362F:68F4 (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * it has been uploaded below. Testload (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

uoloaded picture of page 71 and 72 from book Guru Gobind Singh by history professor Shiv Gajrani.

Example.jpg|Caption1 Example.jpg|Caption2