Talk:Battle of Saragarhi

message: Indian Victory, not Afghan due to the fact that the Afghans couldn’t capture the Fort. 123.24.196.134 (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victory of India, Not the Pashtuns on 25 July 2023 

message: I suggest that this battle be classified as a Pyrrhic Victory as the Afghans suffered heavy losses assaulting the fort and even though they won, they lost valuable time, allowing the British to recapture the fort. Romulus Cyrus (talk) 13:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not seen a source that calls it a Phyrric victory. Alongside that, it would go against MILMOS#INFOBOX. Noorullah (talk) 19:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyrrhic Victory 

message: This is regarding a WP:SPA () who disrupted multiple articles with original research, fake refs, and unreliable sources about Mazhabi Sikhs. They started editing on 18 November 2023 and got blocked for a month for sockpuppetry on 27 November 2023. But they badly mangled multiple articles during such a short span. As this is one of those articles, I am explaining the disruptive edits they made to this article:    
*In their first edit, they dumped a large amount of original research based on fake refs and unreliable self-published material. Here are the details about all the sources cited in that edit:
**This ref is a WP:UGC that doesn't even mention Mazhabi anywhere.
**This ref is from a museum site that again doesn't mention Mazhabi.
**This source is reliable, but it doesn't even mention the subject of this article, i.e. the battle of Saragrahi. It only confirms that Mazhabis are untouchables.  
**The remaining two are the locally published Punjabi sources by likely fellow caste members that are neither reliable for history nor for caste. In fact, one of them – namely, Itihaas vich mazhabi sikha di jado jehad – is published by BlueRoseONE which is a self-publishing company (see WP:SPS for such sources).
*In this edit, they again cited fake refs that don't even mention the battle in question:
**This source is reliable, but it doesn't mention the battle or the involved regiment (36th Sikhs) anywhere in it. The page cited by them only confirms that Mazhabis are "Outcastes".
**The other source cited by them is a reprint of a century-plus-old, unreliable source that was authored by a British Raj officer – see WP:RAJ for relevant links and discussion about such sources. It is available online – see here. Although they didn't cite any page number, this source again doesn't mention the battle or the 36th Sikhs anywhere in it.
*In this edit, they added two new sources:
**This one is an unreliable WP:UGC, which again doesn't mention this battle or the 36th Sikhs.
**They cited this Punjabi source without citing any page number. In any case, this is published by a Sikh religious body (SGPC) and discusses a British Raj author, thereby making it unreliable for caste or history.
**The third one is the reprint of an unreliable British Raj source that I already discussed – it neither mentions the battle nor the 36th Sikhs.
So I will revert their disruption, as they simply dumped a large amount of original research by citing fake refs or unreliable sources. They also disrupted other articles before getting blocked. So I will also notify them about WP:GS/CASTE. 
Finally, this battle was fought by the 36th Sikhs which was a single-class regiment of Jat Sikhs. This fact is not even disputed by any reliable source.
PS: Beware of the WP:MIRRORS that may have appeared between 26 November and today, as these bad edits have remained here during that period. 
- NitinMlk (talk) 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and disruption by a sockmaster 

message: , this article needs extended-confirmed protection for at least a short span, as the current level of protection has failed to stop disruption. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: RegentsPark (comment) 13:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection needs to be increased 

message: The name of Sepoy Uttar Singh in the list of Sikh soldiers needs to be changed to Sepoy Uttam Singh. The references below all confirm that his name was Uttam. I also happen to know this as a descendant.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26937/page/863
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26937/page/868
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/26937/page/867
https://honourpoint.in/profile/sepoy-uttam-singh/
https://historica.fandom.com/wiki/Battle_of_Saragarhi
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/amritsar/city-actor-s-big-break-with-kesari-745576
https://www.meemainseen.com/2020/05/saragarhi/ (the plaque written in Gurmukhi Punjabi text says Uttam) Shubha Dubba (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Cinderella157 (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uttar Singh to Uttam Singh