This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / Indian / South Asia / Early Modern C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Indian military history task force South Asian military history task force Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

@Twarikh e Khalsa: Come on now, you know why most of the content was removed. We absolutely cannot allow 17/18th century vernacular sources or Raj era sources (Maculiffe) on Wikipedia. You can't penalize me for removing content sourced from them when I'm the one abiding by the rules. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Making drastic changes needs the consensus among various editors in order to come to a final decision.Also wikipedia isn't entirely against the idea of using older sources. Older sources can be used, but they can't be used excessively. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suthasianhistorian8

To be fair this page does excessively rely on older literature/sources.Although wikipedia isn't entirely against the use of older sources,older sources can't be used excessively zwhich this page has a tendency of). So i do understand why you made this page a stub.However i also think a consensus should at least be reached first before making a large change such as this.Plus there are secondary sources out there that do provide or may even add further context to this particular battle. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as I've said before on the Battle of Kartarpur talk page, there's nothing wrong with writing this article based on authors like Dalbir Singh Dhillon, Surjit Singh Gandhi, Tony Jacques etc, but not using 18th century sources is an established policy. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose we reach consenus? I'm open to anything. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suthasianhistorian8 you can alert any experienced editors who may be familar with source issues regarding wikipedia articles.

If you know of any editors than you can let them know by tagging them. Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Twarikh, @RegentsPark:, could you provide some elucidation here? Thanks. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Gurbilas Patashahi is a primary source and should definitely not be used. About if and how McAullife can be used, I'll defer to @Sitush:.RegentsPark (comment) 16:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @RegentsPark McAuliffe is poor & would fail the WP:RAJ and WP:HISTRS tests, both of which are widely accepted. Please avoid it. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Sitush. @Suthasianhistorian8 and Twarikh e Khalsa:, in short, the consensus is that neither McAuliffe nor Gurbilas Patashahi are reliable sources and you should not use them. In general avoid raj era sources entirely and, for historical content, use only recent sources since historiography is not static. RegentsPark (comment) 17:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you RegentsPark and Sitush for taking time out of your day and helping. 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Suthasianhistorian8 @RegentsPark @Sitush

  That settles it then. If I have the time then I can hopefully rewrite the page with newer sources.@Suthasianhistorian8 if you want to provide any assistance or help then feel free to reach me out. Take care Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  He avidly promotes anti-sikh bias in his editing. You'll find no help from him. Just bitterness. UnbiasedSN (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]