Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Sam Manekshaw


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Sam Manekshaw

 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review. Field Marshal Manekshaw, a recipient of Military Cross, was the Chief of the Army Staff of the Indian Army during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and was subsequently the first Indian Army officer to be promoted to the rank of field marshal. For his services, he was awarded the Padma Vibhushan and the Padma Bhushan, the second and third highest civilian awards of India. The article is a GA, and also went through a failed A-class review that can be referred here. All the outstanding comments from the previous review have been addressed. Looking forward for comments to improve the article to meet A-class criteria, and eventually be a FA. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupert
Support Comments: G'day, Krishna, sorry this has sat here for so long without a review. I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 11:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * inconsistent presentation: compare "4th battalion of the 12th Frontier Force Regiment" with "3rd Battalion of the 5th Gorkha Rifles" --> IMO it should be "4th Battalion, 12th Frontier Force Regiment" and "3rd Battalion, 5th Gorkha Rifles"
 * not sure if you dealt with this one from the previous review: "Razmak Brigade, stationed in Burma" --> are you sure that the Razmak Brigade was in Burma? My understanding is that it was a rotational brigade that served on the North West Frontier...
 * the bare url link here should be turned into an inline citation: A flyover bridge in Ahmedabad's Shivranjeeni area was named after him in 2008 by Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat at that time.[1]"
 * the Awards and decorations section appears uncited
 * "1934 – 2008": this should be an unspaced endash
 * "Lieutenant General J. F. R. Jacob, chief of the staff": remove the link for Jacob here as he has already been linked
 * Thanks for the review Rupert. No issues, things take time. You're right about "Razmak Brigade". Actually I got confused with some other source, and also removed the awards section, because sources for each and every service medal is not possible. I've fixed everything, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 16:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Factotem
 Comments Support from FactotEm (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * In the lede, 3rd para, ... the 8th Chief of Army Staff.... We write "Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw", but "Sam Manekshaw was a field marshal", i.e. lower case. I think the same applies to capitalisation here with "chief of army staff". The same capitalisation problem is repeated within the Chief of the Army Staff section further down.
 * Section "Early life and education", 2nd para, After completing his schooling in Punjab and at the Sherwood College, Nainital, he achieved a distinction in the School Certificate of the Cambridge Board, an English language curriculum developed by the University of Cambridge International Examinations, at the age of 15. This sentence bothers me, though I'm not quite sure why. There is a timeframe at the beginning ("After completing his schooling..."), and at the end ("...at the age of 15"), and two "...ings" close together. Did he achieve his distinction as a result of his education in Punjab and at Sherwood College? If so, I would be tempted to phrase this sentence something along the lines of "Manekshaw was educated in Punjab and then at the Sherwood College, Nainital, and left school at age 15 with a distinction in the School Certificate of the Cambridge Board, an English language curriculum developed by the University of Cambridge International Examinations."
 * Section "World War II", 1st para, The outbreak of war resulted in a shortage of qualified officers, due to which.... I think "due to" would generally introduce a reason for the preceding statement. Would "There was a shortage of qualified officers on the outbreak of war, and as a result..." be better?
 * Same section, 3rd para, ...Manekshaw attended the 8th Staff Course at Command and Staff College, at Quetta.... Better written as "He attended the 8th staff course at Command and Staff College in Quetta..."?
 * Section "Post-independence". Is there a reason why 5 and 8 Gorkha Rifles are not 5th and 8th?
 * In the Indian Army, units/regiments are addressed without any ordinal suffixes. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Same section, 3rd para, But he was soon posted.... This is the second time you start a sentence with "But". I copy-edited the first out, and I don't think it's a complete no-no, but I do think it should be used for effect, rather than routinely, and I'm not sure what in the previous sentence is being contradicted. You could just as easily cut the "But" and start the sentence with "He".
 * In the same para, you start a sentence with a number, 8 Gorkha Rifles..., which is generally frowned upon. In the next sentence you use the definite article, "the 5 Gorkha Rifles", so is there any reason why you can't say "The 8 Gorkha Rifles..." here?
 * Same section, 4th para, This heated conversation with Menon later proved to be a thorn in his career.. We can have a thorn in our side, but I'm not sure we can have a thorn in our career. Also, it's not clear how this conversation proved to be a problem later in Manekshaw's career - you don't seem to discuss it any further, or if you do you don't connect the problem it back to this episode.
 * Section "Post-independence", 6th para, ... presided over by the then-GOC-in-C Western Command.... You use the abbreviation GOC-in-C here before it is written in full in the last para of this section. Also, do you need to say "then-"? There's some hyphen clutter there. Also, there's another ". But..." beginning a sentence there as well, and I'm not sure you can't just join it with the preceding sentence to produce a ", but...".
 * Same para, Nehru apologized, promoted Manekshaw to lieutenant general, and he moved to Tezpur to take over as the GOC IV Corps.. Who moved to Tezpur? It reads like Nehru did, but I think you mean Manekshaw moved, or have I misunderstood?
 * Section "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971", 4th para, ...the II Corps, commanded by Lieutenant General Tapishwar Narain Raina (later General and COAS), was to enter from the west; the IV Corps, commanded Lieutenant General Sagat Singh, was to enter from the west; the XXXIII Corps, commanded by Lieutenant General Mohan L. Thapan was enter to from the west.... Did the first three really all enter from the west, or are there typos there?
 * Same section, 6th para, The last two messages were delivered as replies to the messages from Major General Rao Farman Ali and Lieutenant General Amir Abdullah Khan Niazi. Given that the last two messages were to have such a "devastating effect", I think you should say a little about what was contained in these messages. I think you explain this in the next para, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to leave us hanging until then. Also, I think it's worth identifying these two as Pakistani officers in this sentence, rather than the next sentence.
 * Section "Controversies", 1st para, ...was presented with a cheque for Rs 1.3 crores (13 million).... 13 million what?
 * Section "Death and legacy", However, neither the President nor the PM, or other leaders from the political class, attended his funeral,[60][61] nor was a national day of mourning declared.[62]. Were they expected to attend? Was a national day of mourning expected? Did comparable figures receive such honours on their deaths?
 * Of course yes, he is the first and one of the only two field marshals of India. I am not sure of "national day of mourning", but leaders attendances is expected. If you check this source, in this case, the "mourning" was as well expected. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've added a statement about how the day of mourning was customary, based on what the source says, but I think that finding, if possible, a source that states leaders attendance was expected would make that statement in the article watertight. Factotem (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Some more comments:
 * Section "Controversies", 3rd para, ...he said that his favourite city was London.... I think you may need to expand on why this was controversial. Was there a negative reaction?
 * Because, he was an Indian, it might have been a bit irky to the general public. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all from me. Good luck. FactotEm (talk) 18:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Same section, last para, However, according to journalist and former military officer Ajai Shukla, it is claimed that Jacob had a habit of bracing up his reputation by tarnishing others with false claims.. When you say, "its is claimed" here, it sounds like Ajai Shukla is reporting a view held by others, but on reading the source, it becomes apparent that it is he who is making that claim, and there is no indication in that source that it was a widely held belief.
 * In terms of Criteria A1, you appear to be mixing citation styles. You use  {{cite web...  (ref 10) and  [http://...  (ref 15), and you mix shortened footnotes, e.g.  {{sfn...  (ref 13) with long citations, e.g.  Compton Mackenzie (1951)...  (ref 14)
 * In terms of Criteria A2, I read through a couple of British newspaper obituaries, and did not get the sense that this article misses any significant events, and it's focussed without going into unnecessary detail. I think you need to be careful about saying "His distinguished military career...". The use of "distinguished" might portray a favouritism for your subject that some people might seize upon as betraying POV. Later on you write how he "...successfully served as an independent director...". I'm not sure that "successfully" is necessary. This also ties into the point I made above about his funeral. I think my problem with that sentence is that you begin it with the word "However...", and I can't help feeling suspicious about that. You might instead simply state that the press remarked on the lack of VIP representation at the funeral - it would have a more neutral tone.
 * On Criteria A3, The lead is a bit short, and appears to miss out on important moments. By the end of the 2nd para you only get as far the post-indepenence section, then we have the shortest para as the last in which the more significant events of his life are summarised. Also no mention at all of the controversies. Otherwise structure is good.
 * On Criteria A5, I'm no expert on the rules about images. I will just note here that the main image is copyrighted and used under fair use rationale.
 * {{re|Factotem}} Thanks for the comments. I've fixed some of the issues raised, but I am sorry that I am not able to fix all of them, will not be able to until 20 December 2017, as I will be out of station with limited internet connectivity. I'll get to back to these as soon as I come back. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 10:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * {{re|Factotem}} Addressed the issues, and replied to a few of them. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * My earlier points have been satisfactorily addressed, except for the following:
 * It's still not clear how Manekshaw's conversation with Menon proved later to be a "thorn in his career", and now there is a second "heated conversation" which had some (unexplained) implication (in the 5th para of section "Post-independence"). It looks as if you are trying to say there that the heated conversation during Menon's visit, along with Manekshaw's subsequent "derogatory comments on the political leadership", led to Manekshaw being marked as an anti-national. Is that correct? If so, then a better phrasing might be along the lines of "He made a few derogatory comments on the political leadership which, along with the earlier conversation with Menon, led to him being marked as an anti-national." This would then help explain the subsequent impact of that conversation. Having said that, it's still not clear how this episode affected Manekshaw's subsequent career. Did being marked as an anti-national hold him back from being promoted? That's the sort of thing I think we are being led to expect. To be honest, I think you could simply remove the sentence "This heated conversation with Menon later proved to be a thorn in his career" altogether without adversely affecting the article. BTW, ref 24 to the Sunday Guardian returns a fatal error right now - don't know if that's a temporary glitch or something more permanent.
 * Not a huge issue, but I still think you need to explain in the article why the London remark was controversial. It does not seem all that controversial to me to express a preference for a city that is not in one's own country. The source states that this remark sullied his image, and maybe this statement can be worked into the narrative? Better yet, are there any news articles online that express outrage at the remark? These would support the statement that it was a controversial remark.
 * The lead is, I think, still not a representative summary of the whole article as noted above.
 * I'm not sure about this point, but I'll raise it here and maybe it will bear fruit for the article. The lack of recognition at his funeral begs the question of why wasn't he thus recognised. Is it because of the controversy in his life? If so, is there any way of working this into the narrative about the funeral? It would beef up the narrative about the controversial aspect of his life if there is a way. Factotem (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * {{re|Factotem}} Removed the bits, and made up as necessary. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

More questions:
 * What was he charged with? Factotem (talk) 08:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * {{xt|On commissioning, as was the practice at that time, Manekshaw was first attached to the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Scots}} Was he attached to the Royal Scots, or was he commissioned into the Royal Scots? Also, was it practice to attach/commission specifically into the Royal Scots, or into a British regiment? Factotem (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Done both of the above. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * {{xt|issued orders to advance to the positions lost in the war...}} Did thus involve fighting, or had they been vacated by the Chinese. I'm thinking "re-occupy" is better than "advance to", but there still needs to be some explanation as to why, after a debacle, these positions could be re-taken, if indeed they were. Factotem (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "advance to" is the right choice there. Because, that answers your later queries. Aftermanth the war, the troops were demoralized, but due to the orders issued to "advance", that is, to charge against the enemy, boosted the morale of troops. However, it is unknown, where the advance was successful or not. The point here is, the "order to advance" moralized the troops. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still a little discordant that so shortly after a debacle the Indians were 'advancing' to previously lost positions, with no indication that this involved battle or that the positions were retaken. I wonder if the following might be a better way of expressing the idea: "He felt that his foremost responsibility was to raise the morale of his demoralised soldiers, which he achieved by ordering them to operate (more?) aggressively." or maybe "...conduct aggressive operations."? We're still informed in the next sentence that the troops were advancing, so the basic concept is not lost, and we're not writing ourselves into a slight corner. Factotem (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * {{re|Factotem}} I have changed the first sentence. I think you might suggest better lines after a look at the source, available here (same book that is cited, is available there). Please go the para that contains {{xt|Thank God there is somebody giving orders. We have never had any orders till now}}. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that part reads well now. Factotem (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Was the reservation of positions in the army for scheduled castes and tribes actually implemented, or was it abandoned in the planning stages? Factotem (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It was abandoned in the planning stages. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Should "scheduled castes and scheduled tribes" be capitalised as proper nouns, as they are in the article on that subject? And can it be written as Scheduled Castes and Tribes? Factotem (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 12:50, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * {{xt|...the Pakistan Armed Forces launched a fierce campaign to curb the secessionists, including the soldiers and police from East Pakistan}} Were the East Pakistani soldiers and police seccessionists, or were they part of the PAF that curbed the seccessionists? Factotem (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * East Pakistani soldiers and police were part of the seccessionists. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Was his funeral officially a state funeral, and if so, is there a source to support that assertion? The Times of India article puts state funeral in quotes, so that won't do as a source. Factotem (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * {{re|Factotem}} I couldn't find any sources to claim it as a state funeral. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Iazyges
Will start soon. Iazyges  Consermonor   Opus meum  00:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 07:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry Krishna, I've been neglecting the A-Reviews as a whole for a while. Just started working on them again, I'll try to get this reviewed today. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  07:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead

 * "Having commanded troops at division, corps and regional command levels," Suggest changing to "Having already commanded troops at division, corps and regional levels"

Body

 * "Hormusji Manekshaw, who was a doctor, and his wife Hilla" Suggest changing to "Hormusji Manekshaw, who was a doctor, and Hilla, his wife"
 * Suggest adding a wiktionary link to "anté-date".
 * Suggest changing "This was not liked by" to "This was met with disapproval by"
 * "During his stint as the chief" suggest changing stint to "time".
 * Thats all my comments, happy to Support. Super sorry for taking so long. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  00:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I've made all the changes, except that, stint was replaced by tenure. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support from Indy beetle

 * In the footnote explaining why Manekshaw was considered to be in service until 2008 due to Indian Army practices concerning five star officers, you should also put the year he retired from active duty.
 * "Manekshaw became the 8th chief of the army staff in 1969" and "he attended the 8th staff course at Command and Staff College" should say "eighth" instead of 8th. For prose writings of numbers and their derivatives below a value of 10 the word should be written out (exceptions being for dates and proper names of military units and ranks).
 * "Manekshaw was born...Sam Manekshaw was the fifth of six children" would be better as "Sam Manekshaw was born...Manekshaw was the fifth of six children".
 * "on the basis of an examination conducted by the Public Service Commission." If applicable, you should wikilink Public Service Commission to either Union Public Service Commission or Public Service Commission in India.
 * "his class produced three future chiefs—Manekshaw (India), Smith Dun (Burma) and Muhammad Musa (Pakistan)". "Chiefs" is an ambiguous term (perhaps on purpose?), and while Manekshaw became chief of staff the other two officers became commander-in-chiefs. This sentenced could be revised to say something along the lines of "his class also produced Smith Dun and Muhammad Musa, future commander-in-chiefs of Burma and Pakistan, respectively."
 * "On commissioning, as was the practice at that time, Manekshaw was first attached to the 2nd Battalion, The Royal Scots, a British battalion..." What was the practice? Attaching 2nd lieutenants to British battalions? Could be revised for clarity. Also swap "British battalion" with "British unit" to avoid redundancy.
 * "The official recommendation for the MC states that the success of the attack "was largely due to the excellent leadership and bearing of Captain Manekshaw."" The quote needs a citation.
 * "Manekshaw replied that it was not appropriate for him to think of his chief in that way..." This is ambiguous. Did Manekshaw think it was inappropriate to make personal evaluations of a superior? The quote in the box certainly helps, but the prose should be a bit more exact.
 * "Tomorrow, you will be asking my (subordinate) brigadiers and colonels what they think of me." Use brackets for [subordinate] instead of parenthesis.
 * "and appointed as the Quarter Master General" No need for the "as".
 * "made derogatory comments on the political leadership." on ---> about
 * "This led him to be marked as an anti-national." By this do you mean he was considered unpatriotic? (I'm an American, and I've never heard the phrase anti-national. If this is a standard term in British or Indian English than I have no problem with it.)
 * "was charged and subjected to a court of inquiry." Charged with what? Insubordination, sedition?
 * "This remark attracted as much criticism as anything else in his career." The latter part of this sentence is a little too...artistic (and ambiguous) and implies that there were other actions of his that created as much controversy. It might be better to say more directly that "This remark attracted as much criticism as when [insert time he was critisiced]" or "attracted more criticism than any other time in his career", whichever is applicable.
 * "Jacob also mentioned that when Manekshaw was the chief," should specify chief of staff
 * Jacob has already been introduced in the prior para, do we need to specify again? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "Chief of staff" is the full name of the post, saying only "chief" is, to my knowledge, incomplete. At any rate, it's not a major complaint of mine and I'll let other reviewers/copy editors decide what to do about it. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Addendum: Seems Manekshaw used the word "Chief" to describe his superior, so I'm fine with the way iot is used in the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "The couple have two sons named Raoul Sam and Jehan Sam." Would probably sound better as "had two sons", especially considering that he and his wife are dead.
 * "The couple have two sons" ... "He was survived by two daughters". Which is it?
 * Is there any info on the origin of his nickname, Sam Bahadur?
 * Addressed everything. Thanks for the review, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing any information on the origin of his nickname Sam Bahadur. Page 115 of  Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw, M.C.: Soldiering with Dignity by Depinder Singh appears to have some info on it. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Just going to jump in here and point out that the sons are not Manekshaw's, but his daughters. I have no idea whether the daughters are still alive, so there's a bit of leeway between "had" and "have", though had is not wrong even if they are still alive. Factotem (talk) 19:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I sense that both of you mistook the context at this point. Manekshaw's daughters were Sherry and Maya. Sherry married Batliwala, and their daughter is/was Brandy. Maya married Daruwala, their sons are/were Raoul Sam and Jehan Sam. So the "The couple have two sons" refers to Maya and Daruwala. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay I see now. I added a few words to specify these relations in the text, but this makes things much more clear. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added the context on his nickname, see "Chief of the Army Staff" section. I've also addressed all your other comments. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * All my comments have been addressed, I support this article's promotion to A-class. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Image review
 * File:Field_Marshal_Sam_Manekshaw.jpg: is the author known? Who is believed to be the copyright holder? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Its the official portrait of Manekshaw by the Indian Army, when he was the army chief, as a general. It can be verified from the source link. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 15:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 14:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any image credit at the source site, but more details about copyright should be added to the image description page. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Added lines to "Replaceable?" Please let me know what else to be added if that is not sufficient. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 04:19, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ping. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 06:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.