Talk:Battle of Balakot
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Balakot article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Infobox image
edit@Sutyarashi and @Twarikh e Khalsa – It seems the painting in the infobox has indeed been misattributed to the wrong historical event by the person who uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. Here is another upload showing the painting but also the caption of the painting at a museum it was displayed at, identifying it as a depiction of the Battle of Chappar Chiri (1710), not the Battle of Balakot: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Photo_depicting_battle_of_Chapparchiri.jpg
In-light of this, I shall remove it from the infobox of this article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Unverifiable and Unreliable source
editThis source: Naqvi, A.Q. (2001). The Salafis (History of the Ahle Hadees Movement in India). New Delhi: Al-Kitab International. pp. 132–139, 148. is unverifiable and also the credentials of the author A.Q. Naqvi. Who is he? Is he a historian? Has the book been peer reviewed? The onus is the editor to go through WP:RS before adding such sources where the content is hard to be verified.
The other source: Altaf Qadir (2014). Sayyid Ahmad Barailvi: His Movement and Legacy from the Pukhtun Perspective. SAGE Publishing India. p. 144. ISBN 978-93-5150-486-3. has been written from Pakhtun perspective like the book says and not from historical one. Even the publisher is incorrectly added here. Correct is SAGE Publications.
These sources need to go through Wikipedia Reliability noticeboard before being added on the article and the onus is on the editor trying to add these sources. 199.81.206.167 (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Your objection over Naqvi may have merit (apparently it has been cited on the main article on Sayyid Ahmad Barelvi as well), but that of Altaf Qadir is WP:RS. He is assistant Professor at Department of History, University of Peshawar, as source itself states. No other editor has disputed the references. It has been at the article since many months, and as you are the one disputing its reliability, you should take them to WP:RSN.
- And, for your information, the sources don't themselves need to be neutral/unbiased but the content added on Wikipedia. See WP:BESTSOURCES. So your objection that it is unreliable just because it has been apparently written from Pashtun perspective has no merit. Sutyarashi (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- However, I agree with your objection over Naqvi. No other source corroborates his claim. Hence, if you agree, the strength can be written as:
- Sikh: 5000 (Gupta)
- Mujahedeen: 700 (Qadir) to 3000 (Gupta)
- Sikh Loss: Unknown
- Mujahedeen loss: 500 (Gupta)
- Sutyarashi (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I agree with you changing the strength to what you mentioned above. Thanks. 199.81.206.167 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)