Talk:Karam Singh

Untitled

When did he die?86.141.123.58 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Lance Naik

Why is his rank given as Lance Naik, when he was retired as Honorary Captain?84.23.155.84 (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Honorary Ranks in the Indian Army are typically given after retirement. I have not been able to find any information about what rank he retired at etc.Myopia123 (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

World War II service

G'day, nice work on the article so far. I have one suggestion. Currently there doesn't seem like there is much information about this soldier's service during World War II other than the Military Medal. For instance, could it be mentioned which regiment he served in, and in what theatres (e.g. did he serve in North Africa, Italy, or Burma, or somewhere else?). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I've personally tried finding more information about his WW2 service but unsuccessful so far. Also, the citation mentions he served in Burma. Thanks! Myopia123 (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I've added it to the article now. Do you think it should mention the 11th Sikhs also? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karam Singh/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 02:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is looking good, but I have a few comments/queries:

• suggest using {{postnominals}}
  • PVC cannot be mentioned using this template, so to maintain consistency, I would not suggest this.
• should be 1st Battalion as it is the title of a unit (and follow with 1 SIKH in parentheses)
  • Done.
• is the citation for his MM available, it would be a good addition?
  • I am sorry that the citation is not available.
• there is a missing bit, how he remained in the Indian Army after WWII
  • There isn't much gap between WWII and War of 1947.
• There is no context for the capture of Tithwal. Where is it, in terms of the regions of India? Jammu and Kashmir? and why was it being fought over? I think a few lines on the background to the fighting is needed.
• When mentioning the fierce battle, just use 1 SIKH, ie "commanding a 1 SIKH forward post"
  • Done.
• suggest "attacks multiple times", as you are going to tell us later that it was eight altogether
  • Done.
• suggest "On 21 June 1950, Singh's award of the Param Vir Chakra was gazetted. The citation read:"
  • Done.
• any other awards? He seems to have had a row and a half of ribbons
  • Those were service awards, which are not notable enough. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
• Was he the first? Perhaps the first living and first Sikh recipient?
• there is no mention of the public auctioning of his PVC, this should definitely be included in the article
• The Tribune article has a bit more information, like he went to primary school, and apparently there is a memorial to him at the District Administrative Complex at Sangrur?
• There is more information about Singh's involvement in a flag raising at independence in The Hindu article, as well as complaints that the government did not grant the family benefits due to them, this information should be included also
• the infobox should probably have MM as well as PVC (at the top)
• the image license seems ok
• Once these comments have been addressed, the lead should be expanded to include a full summary of the main points of the article

That's me done. Placing on hold for seven days. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi, thanks for the comments. I'm packed with outreach activities, I'll get back to these by the end of this week. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No worries, let me know when you're done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna. Any progress on this as yet? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hi PM, I suggest you to decline the submission for now. I may not find in the coming two weeks, as I am actively involved in various outreach activities. I'll nominate this article after I resolve the issues. Sorry for the trouble. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, Krishna. I'd be happy to take a look when you put it up again. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Greetings PM, I've renominated the article, give it a look. I hope I've addressed all your concerns from this review. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Karam Singh/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

G'day Krishna,

There are still a few outstanding points from the first GA review:

• There is no context for the capture of Tithwal. Where is it, in terms of the regions of India? Jammu and Kashmir? and why was it being fought over? I think a few lines on the background to the fighting is needed.
• there is no mention of the public auctioning of his PVC, this should definitely be included in the article
• There is more information about Singh's involvement in a flag raising at independence in The Hindu article, as well as complaints that the government did not grant the family benefits due to them, this information should be included also
• Once these comments have been addressed, the lead should be expanded to include a full summary of the main points of the article

Otherwise, this is tracking well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Hey PM, thanks for taking this. Actually there isn't anything available on "capture of Tithwal". During the 1947 Indo-Pak war it was captured by Pakistani raiders and it was recaptured by India. May I include some context on 1947–1948 Indo-Pak War. Will address the other issues in a day or two. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: I hope I've addressed the issues. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by an appropriately licensed image with an appropriate caption. Passing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of citation section "Military Medal"

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.

---

@Myopia123: Thanks for your contributions. I see that you've reverted my edit that removed the content you added as the Citation of Military Medal. Here is the explanation for my action: The content that you've added is not basically the citation of the award. By definition citation is a "note accompanying an award, describing the reasons for it". Your text just is to refer that the subject has been awarded Military Medal, that's it, nothing more that that. "The KING has been graciously pleased to approve the following awards on recognition of gallant and distinguished services in Burma" is common liner for all the recipients during the war for their action in Burma, nothing specific. If you think that this rationale satisfies your query, please revert your action. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: 'Citation' has multiple definitions, one of which is: "mention of a soldier or a unit in orders, usually for gallantry" and another is "any award or commendation, as for outstanding service, hard work, or devotion to duty, especially a formal letter or statement recounting a person's achievements". Both the Param Vir Chakra citation (which describes the action) and the Military Medal text meet the definition in their own ways. Apart from that, I see no reason to remove the MM citation and I also feel that it adds to the value obtained from reading the article. I feel it should stay. Myopia123 (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Myopia123: I agree with you on the point that Citation has multiple definitions, Military Medal text satisfies it. But there is no point in mentioning about the entire announcement, with a quote box and all, when there is nothing specific for the subject, like it is for Param Vir Chakra. Also it has already been mentioned in the second section that "during the Burma Campaign of World War II, he was awarded the Military Medal", with the same London Gazzette as reference. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: The Military Medal is a significant achievement and Karam Singh is (to my knowledge) the only person to have received both the PVC and MM. I.e. he has received awards both from the Monarch of the UK and the President of India. Not only does the citation add value but removing would not give sufficient weight to his achievement. My vote is for it to stay.Myopia123 (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Myopia123: Of course yes, Karam Singh has a distinguished achievement to his name. Section 2 already has a mention about this, again in Section 3 you're just presenting it in a different way, with the all details of the reference, which is not required for an encyclopedia. For example, "printed in The London Gazette on 18 May 1944" is like mention of "Publisher name" and "Publication date". Again "No. 22356 Sepoy Karam Singh, 11th Sikh Regiment, Indian Army"; these details are already there. I feel that this is just duplication of content. Anyways, I am pinging Peacemaker67, who reviewed the article for Good article assessment. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: PVC citation also states 'Gazette Notification: 2 Pres/50, 21.6.50'. If the issue is duplication of content, my vote is to remove all other references and keep the citation of the MM. Myopia123 (talk) 16:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Myopia123: Yes, it does. But the case for PVC is different. It has a specific citation for the subject, which explains the action of Karam Singh during the battle. In the case MM, there is no such thing. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Peacemaker67 again, and also the Lead coord of MilHis Project, AustralianRupert. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

If there was more context in the citation (i.e. about why it was presented), I'd say keeping it would add something. But without this, I'm not so sure that it adds much, to be honest. Having said that, it's not a major warstoper for me, though, and I don't think it diminishes the article to include the MM citation if there is consensus for that. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

@Myopia123: Do you have anything to add, as Rupert suggested. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: I feel his comments add to what I said. The only valid issue I can see is duplication of information, in which case remove inline mention and keep citation. That is my firm position on this matter. Myopia123 (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Myopia123: Please be clear on what do you "remove inline mention and keep citation". I am confused with this phrase, are you referring to the award's citation or citation to a sentence (i.e. a reference)? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: You raised the issue of duplication of information. The only place I feel it is worth mentioning is the Military Medal citation. Any other mentions in the article can be removed. The matter is now closed as far as I am concerned.Myopia123 (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Myopia123: I am not convinced with the argument. If you carefull observe Rupert's comment, it says that if it had context on why it was presented, it would add something to the article, otherwise it a mere duplication on lines. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: And I am not convinced with yours. I have observed that you have been arbitrarily editing a lot of articles that I have put quite some effort in. Now I am going to state my position for the last time. Also, you are repeating the same point over and over. If the issue is duplication, the proper place to keep MM is the official citation. You may remove all other places it is mentioned in the article. This is my firm and final position. Myopia123 (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Myopia123: Please explain on "you have been arbitrarily editing a lot of articles that I have put quite some effort in". I'm repeating my point because it is valid, why do you want to keep the MM's citation when it adds nothing, it is just expanding the reference to the fact that the subject has received MM. In case of further disagreement, it is best to request a third opinion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga: You removed sourced info without summary or explanation. You have changed reasons to "value" from "duplication". If the issue is that citation does not fit how you, personally, want the article to look, then that is not valid reason to remove it. It is sourced information included by me at only one point in the article. In an encyclopedia, all sourced information has value. Therefore, my position is that it stays. If the issue is value, then it does have value. If the issue is duplication, I have no objection to removing OTHER mentions of the MM and keeping the citation. Myopia123 (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement over section containing the citation of Military Medal and whether it adds anything to the content value.):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Karam Singh and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I think it does not add value. The article is good. We do not need to really add every thing that can be cited. G (talk) 13:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC) @Gbohoadgwwian: For the record, I strongly disagree. And even if the consensus does end up being to remove the citation, a Military Medal should be mentioned more prominently than what it was before I added the citation in order to give it its due weight.Myopia123 (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

 Comment: Notified relevant WikiProjects (India and Military history). Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason or justification for this material, all we need is a mention he was awarded it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I also see no real value in keeping the citation either. Move the footnote used there to the line in the Military career section about him earning the medal, since it's formatted better, and interested readers can follow the source to the citation if they're so inclined. Parsecboy (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I concur with the previous two editors; the MM citation adds nothing to the existing mention of the award in the military career. Unlike the PVC citation, it has no details about the action for which it was awarded. Zawed (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Came here via Milhist. If we had the actual citation, explaining what he got the MM for, that would be a different matter. But we don't, this is just the formal announcement of the award in the Gazette. It doesn't add anything. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Myopia123: From the above the comments, it is evident that "MM Citation" doesn't add anything to the article. Kindly do the needful. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Myopia seems to be away, so I have removed the material. Parsecboy (talk) 17:32, 16 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.

Social

What is karam singh act of bravery 2401:4900:3315:975C:ADDF:E750:6956:F5B3 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2022 (UTC)