Talk:Battle of Chillianwala

message: "The Sikhs had little if any superiority to the British force of around 16,000".
That doesn't make sense when compared to the estimate given in the box of 23,000 Sikh troops - an almost 50% numerical advantage. The Khalsa were brave, well trained troops in a good defensive position, so on the face of it they had a significant advantage. I notice as well the 'source' for the statement is an internet blog and an opinion piece, which are not good source materials.Cavort (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers

message: HLGallon,
I think this little debate can be settled amicably rather than having two sides insist on reverting as though this article were a personal fiefdom. By the standards set forth on wikipedia, the merits of various primary and secondary sources can be debated. Keay has an excellent record as an historian of subcontinental studies, and is by no means an indian nationalist or, his british nationality notwithstanding, a colonial imperialist. He has fairly dealt with the subject matter, so to cast aspersions on the figures which he cites is a little unfair. He has drawn from a number of primary and secondary sources, both British and Indian, for his detailed work. His history of the battle of chillianwalla ranging from Grewal and Griffin (Cambridge and Oxford presses respectively) to Malcolm and Marshall is no exception. 
Proposed settlement: cite both figures, but give precedence to the primary source you have cited, with the subtext of "other estimates" to the one keay cites. In this fashion, more credence will be given to the official figures, while accounting for the possibility of any alternate possibilities described by legitimate british military and indian subcontinental historians. Let me know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.79.113 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Official casualty returns are just that; all casualties are counted, confirmed, their next of kin notified where known, and names published in the London Gazette or other official communiques. They are not estimates; they are solid facts as far as can be ascertained. To claim that they were falsified because "official casualty figures are often diluted for propaganda purposes going back to the time of Alexander" is an unsubstantiated slur. The loose wording of Keay's text quoted, "... they had lost three thousand men ..." suggests total casualties, rather than killed. If Keay had a valid primary source for that number of dead, it should be quoted verbatim. The British Army did indeed make dubious claims to a victory and perhaps inflated the number of enemy losses, but the furore immediately after the battle which resulted in Gough's immediate supersession shows that the full extent of the casualties was known immediately, and the highest authorities were aware that the victory was no such thing. HLGallon (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Minor nitpick; it wasn't the British Indian Army at the time, it was the Bengal Presidency Army of the British East India Company. Its sepoys were long-serving soldiers who had the same or better rights to pensions and compensations to widows and other family members as British soldiers. They were certainly not casual labourers or cannon fodder whose numbers could be fudged or ignored for propaganda purposes. It is not for me to prove that numbers were not deflated; it is for detractors to prove that they were. You will note that I have consistently used the figures for strengths and casualties most favourable to the Sikhs in the info. box, and used Indian and Sikh researches as references and citations. In particular, the Indian historian, Major General A.H. Amin, has discussed Gough's casualties at great length in one of the two on-line sources I have provided (defencejournal.com). He can hardly be accused of pro-British partisanship; and nowhere does he allege that casualty figures were massaged. HLGallon (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: Evidence: 
Casualties
" The final losses to Gough's army were 757 killed, 1,651 wounded and 104 missing[3] for a total of 2,512.[12] Almost 1,000 of the casualties were British rather than Indian. This was mainly a result of the disaster which befell the 24th Foot, which suffered 590 casualties, over 50 percent. "
Note the tone on the second sentence. "casualties were British rather than Indian. mainly because.. etc, etc". Why is there a hint of justification in this article? So what if many British soldiers died in the field of battle? Is it wikipedia's role to take sides ? If so then it is unfit to post articles of History. Please state facts without personal opinion. Internet is a tool of freedom and liberty only as long as nationalism stays out of the way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjanajjas (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you consider a single factual, cited statement to be evidence of bigotry, then I suggest you contribute elsewhere. I note you are a recent contributor to Wikipedia, but you already appear to be a single purpose account. The article on this battle has undergone countless revisions, all intended to establish neutrality and concensus. By all means, correct any statement or phrasing you find misleading, but do not implicitly accuse editors of non-neutral point of view. HLGallon (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is another evidence of this website NOT being neutral in displaying facts 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Chillianwala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007165716/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007165716/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007165716/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Chillianwala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216224904/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/july/chillianwala.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/july/chillianwala.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified