Talk:Ranjit Singh/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Capture of Lahore

To Nasir Ghobar,

• You used Britannica as one of your sources to verify the claim that you are making. Let's see what's Britannica has to offer. Article on Ranjit Singh should be read carefully. It says, In July 1799 he seized Lahore, the capital of the Punjab (now the capital of Punjab province, Pak.). The Afghan king, Shah Zamān, confirmed Ranjit Singh as governor of the city.

• First, Britannica confirms Ranjit Singh seized Lahore in 1799. It's does not state Zaman Shah appointed him governor. There is difference between appointed and Conformation. May be because Zaman Shah had no objection on seize of Lahore by Ranjit Singh.

Now other articles on Britannica about related things.

• Article on Lahore. From the death of Aurangzeb (1707), Lahore was subjected to a power struggle between Mughal rulers and Sikh insurrectionists. With the invasion of Nādir Shāh in the mid-18th century, Lahore became an outpost of the Iranian empire. However, it soon was associated with the rise of the Sikhs, becoming once more the seat of a powerful government during the rule of Ranjit Singh (1799–1839). After Singh’s death, the city rapidly declined, and it passed under British rule in 1849.

• Article on India. This emerges from the fact that he used as his capital the great trading city of Lahore, which he captured in 1799, in the aftermath of invasions by Shah Zamān, the successor of Tīmūr Shah. His rise to power was based on superior military force, partly serviced by European mercenaries and by the strategic location of the territories that he had inherited from his father.

• Article on India:FROM BANDA SINGH BAHADUR TO RANJIT SINGH on same Britannica clearly states, Ranjit Singh captured the city of Lahore in 1799, in the aftermath of invasions by Shah Zamān. It never mention appointment or conformation by Zaman Shah. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• 1. "The Afghan king, Shah Zamān, confirmed Ranjit Singh as governor of the city" means that the king (Zaman Shah) approved the 19 year old "one-eyed" Ranjit as the governor of a place that has been part of the Durrani Empire since 1747. You're desperately trying to ignore Afghan rule over Punjab but that is NOT going to change history. Plus, you have been abusing multiple accounts (pretending to be more than one person) and that exposes to us your state of mind. You are trying to deceive and mislead readers and to obfuscate the situation. You keep repeating the one part but purposely ignore the other part. This is an encyclopedia and not the place to play silly games. Keep in mind that Ranjit Singh, the British and the Durranis were all allies, and when you know this you get a more better idea of the situation. It was the Barakzai dynasty that fought and defeated the Durranis, the Sikhs and the British.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  2. In the Early life section, the following is copyvio: "In 1799, Ranjit Singh captured Lahore from the Bhangi Misl and made it his capital.[13] This was the first important step in his rise to power." It is copied from this site [1], which by the way is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is an essay without any references and is written by an anonymous person posted on a private college website. This again proves that Theman244 is desperately searching online to find something that doesn't mention Ranjit Singh being governor of Lahore in 1799 and King Zaman Shah. These are disruptive acts and I think Theman244 could be blocked for that. He also has a habit of using multiple accounts for edit-warring and consensus purposes.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

These are the events that occurred between 1799 to 1839:

1. In 1799 Afghan King Zaman Shah made Lahore part of the Durrani Empire again after his 4th campaign against some rebel Sikhs. Zaman Shah returned to Kabul after this was completed.
2. Later in the same year Ranjit Singh captured Lahore from the rebel Sikhs who tried to re-take Lahore and Zaman Shah accepted the 19 year old Ranjit Singh as the governor at that point.
3. In 1801, after signing a treaty with the British, Ranjit Singh declared himself King of the Punjab region.
4. Revolt by the Barakzais in Afghanistan forced Zaman Shah to flee to Ranjit Singh's territory.
5. Shuja Shah Durrani, brother of Zaman Shah, gave Ranjit the Koh-i-Noor diamond for exchange of helping him to defeat the Barakzais in Afghanistan. Ranjit Singh used the terms of the 1801 treaty with the British to recieve help.
6. Ranjit Singh's Sikhs and British forces invaded Afghanistan to help the Durranis.
7. In 1839 Shah Shujah was put on the throne in Kabul and Ranjit Singh died in the same year.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that different POVs are getting different aspects.

Ranjit Singh, A Dictionary of Indian History, by Sachchidananda Bhattacharya, p723. "But the repeated incursions in the Panjab by the Afghan ruler, Zaman Shah during the years 1793-98 created so much disorder in the province that young Ranjit, then in his eighteenth year, occupied Lahore in July 1799. Zaman Shah made virtue of necessity, recognised Ranjit as the Governor of Lahore and conferred on him the title of Raja.

So, Ranjit was in possession of Lahore then Zaman made him Governor of Lahore. Which was essentially a meaningless gesture(ie. virtue of necessity?), since Ranjit already occupied the city. --Defensor Ursa 18:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Occupying land is meaningless when it comes to politics, and you failed to explain who Ranjit took Lahore from. It was not a meaningless gesture, the entire Lahore was surounded by powerful non-Sikh militaries. Afghans to the West, British to the East, Moghuals in the north, and Baloch and others to the south. It was recognition that Ranjit seeked, which began with the Afghans in 1799 followed by the British in 1801. By the way, King Zaman Shah did not phone Ranjit to say ok you're a governor, a special envoy was sent from Kabul to Lahore which confirmed Ranjit as the governor. This is how things are done through politics.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 04:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the above and in all honesty I cannot make head or tail of what Nasir Ghobar is saying. Ranjit Singh was already occupying Lahore. The Bhangi Sardars before him. What Shah Zaman did was a meaningless gesture. If Shah Zaman had said "Ranjit Singh you are no longer Governor of Lahore" Ranjit Singh would have just ignored him. This is a clear case of WP:LAWYER on the part of Nasir Ghobar . Thanks SH 14:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

If you don't know what I'm saying then you should go away and not comment. This discussion is for editors who know what's going on here. What does occupying a city has to do with King Zaman Shah selecting him as Governor/Mayor? If we follow that stupidity it would mean that Afghanistan is owned and ruled by NATO commanders since they are occupying it. My problem is that I only attract poorly educated nationalists in Wikipedia but if I was an admin, they would be agreeing to everything that I say. This is pathetic but true.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 15:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am seriously tired of your infantile personal attacks, "I only attract poorly educated nationalists in Wikipedia". Go look in the mirror! You edit with only ONE intent here. To extol the "greatness" of Afghans, Afghanistan, etc. ANYONE that disagrees with you is, in your childish opinion, a nationalist, when in reality the only nationalist is you. I have created and edited articles that range from India to England during medieval times. The majority of which have nothing to do with Persia, Persians, etc, despite what YOUR opinion is. You have already shown you have an intense hatred of Persians which is your failing. If you continue on this vendetta against all things Persian you won't be editing here for long. --Defensor Ursa 16:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you obsessed with me? If not then please go away and leave me alone, and stop following me. My last comment was not to you but someone else. You're ignoring the topic here and wrongly accusing me of being anti-Persian. I know Americans and they do not behave like this.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

KNOWING REAL RANJIT SINGH, Press Information Bureau, Government of India. Ranjit Singh entered Lahore fort as a conqueror on July 7, 1799 at the age of nineteen. The papulace, largely consisting of Muslims and Hindus, welcomed him as their redeemer. Theman244 (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The link that Theman244 posted is this [2] by Dr. Maheep Singh (obviously a Sikh). He writes: "Rising from a family of little political consequence, a heir to one of many petty chiefdoms that had sprung up on the ruins of the Mughal Empire, Maharaja Ranjit Singh rose to an unusually lofty political position. He successfully avenged the innumerable defeats, humiliations and depredations suffered by the people on this part of the land over the centuries, at the hands of Afghan invaders.... " He doesn't explain which Afghan invaders. Indians generally view the Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Khilji, Babur and his army, Nader Shah and his army, and the Durranis as Afghan invaders because they all came from what is now Afghanistan to India. Dr. Maheep Singh doesn't provide us with any references, which means he probably put the piece together based on his personal knowledge and belief, so I don't think it is an RS. I don't even understand why Theman244 is repeating over and over that Ranjit Singh invaded/captured/conquered/took the city of Lahore from his fellow Sikhs. This was nothing new because the Afghan rulers (Durranis) have done that a number of times since 1747. I want to address what happened AFTER Ranjit Singh took over the city from the Bhangi Sikhs. Books tell us that King Zaman Shah Durrani appointed/selected/chosen/accepted/approved/hand-picked Ranjit as the governor of that city, which we call today as a mayor, and this is the MISSING essential information that should be added in this article. Whether this is important to you or not is irrelevant. By him being recognized as governor by the Afghans, it meant that if somebody started war with him or refused to pay taxes then the Afghan military would come again (as they've been doing since 1738) to help/support Ranjit. That gave him authority to collect taxes and play with big money without any fear from the Afghan side. Slowly he began to get greedy as normal, especially after King Zaman Shah was deposed and the signing of a treaty with the British in 1801. At that point he felt that he should be regarded as an independent ruler so he declared himself in that same year. I feel like I'm explaining this to 10 year old kids. My advise is to please keep your anti-Afghan views to the side here because that is only making you look bad. I wrote this long comment not because I'm desperately wanting to put that missing info but to help unfamiliar editors understand the situation of that time.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

1. "By Zaman Shah he was appointed Governor of Lahor." The History of India, Page 131. [3]
2. "After having been appointed as the Governor of Lahore by Zaman Shah Ranjeet Singh took the possession of Lahore. History of Modern India, 1707 A. D. to 2000 A. D, by Radhey Shyam Chaurasia. pg. 139. [4]
3. "Ranjit Singh, who had originally been appointed Governor of the Punjab by Zaman Shah, was a ruler of exceptional ability and acumen." Afghanistan - A New History, by Sir Marti Ewans, pg. 32. [5]
4. "MAHARAJA RANJIT SINGH Ranjit was born in 1780. He helped Zaman Shah to capture Punjab at the age of 19. Zaman Shah was happy and appointed Ranjit Singh as the Governor of Lahore in 1799." History of India, by N. Jayapalan, pg. 134. [6]
5. "The Panjab was meanwhile ruled by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh, originally appointed as Zaman Shah's governor'" Muslim World, by H. Scheel, Gerhard Jaschke, H. Braun, Bertold Spuler, T Koszinowski, Frank Ronald Charles Bagley, pg. 176. [7]
6. "When the Afghan Zaman Shah invaded in 1798, Ranjit Singh opposed him so vigorously that Zaman Shah appointed him governor as a way of making him an ally." Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia, by Melvin E. Page, pg. 495. [8]
7. A Brief History of India, by Alain Daniélou, Kenneth Hurry, pg. 293. [9]
8. Punjab Through the Ages, by S.R. Kakshi, Rashmi Pathak, pg. 163. [10]

I think I can list a dozen more if it's necessary.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

You are trying to prove a point that makes no sense at all. I can also use this kind of language that you are using, but i do not believe in this kind of nonsense talk nor i am interested. What the hell you mean to say if the historian belongs to X religion/country then their work, books etc cannot be considered reliable and if they belong to Y religion/country then their work will be considered reliable. According to you if religion/country of a historian is a criteria for reliable source then this also applies to sources provided by you. As already mentioned by other user, This is a clear case of WP:LAWYER on the part of Nasir Ghobar. Theman244 (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Press Information Bureau presents information to the press and public on government policy. Website also has features on important topics, and accreditation information for journalists. It is a Government of India news site. Website is designed, updated and maintained by Press Information Bureau, Government of India. There are certain guidelines and criteria need to be met. KNOWING REAL RANJIT SINGH is a featured topic on the website. Theman244 (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Sikh Achievers, by Ranjit Singh (OBE.) 'Order of British Empire' and Kripa Shankar. page110.

• Ranjit Singh made remarkable progress under the advice and guidelines of his mother-in-law Sada Kaur, of the Kanahya Misl.

• The joint strength of the two states(misls) made him the head of the most powerful unit of the Khalsa.

• In 1796, Shah Zaman, King of Afghanistan, attacked Punjab and asked Ranjit Singh to surrender to him. Ranjit Singh send him a bravely worded reply that the Sikhs were owners of their own Punjab and did not recognize any other ruler.

• The Shah took Lahore and proceed to the Amritsar, where the Sikhs had gathered. The Sikhs defeated the invader, forcing him to retreat to his country.

• In 1798, Shah invaded again and occupied Lahore, Ranjit Singh led the forced and besieged Lahore.

• Lahore was administered by three Bhangi sardars. The administration was in very bad shape. The residents wants Ranjit Singh to come to Lahore because people under his rule was happy and at peace.

• In 1799, A joint forces of Ranjit Singh and Sada Kaur captured Lahore.

Here is link, http://books.google.com/books?id=qfuDnpVlmlcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:FXeYyh2SsIIC&source=bl&ots=RmMkPkV9M-&sig=SWil2U5bCvD6XLXcfvrph2m-Y1Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rO1HUIKNBMLtiwLpwoCQCQ&ved=0CDIQ6wEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Theman244 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is not only weak but also pointless. When so many historians all around the world explain in their published books that King Zaman Shah appointed the 19 year old Ranjit Singh as governor of Lahore then we have no other choice but to add this relevant information in this article. You are trying to WP:CENSOR information and also wrongly accusing me of things. This is disruptive and I find it annoying also. Whenever I'm not busy I'll take this issue to dispute resolution as suggested by Qwyrxian above.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 05:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nasir Ghobar , now you are just being un WP:CIVIL as well as violating WP:PETTIFOG. I've informed an admin of your behaviour and your attitude of WP:OWN. Thanks SH 12:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm being civil. I disagree with your opinion that I'm violating WP:PETTIFOG. What does Ownership of articles has to do with me wanting to add some relevant information in this article? Whenever you report me to an admin you're suppose to notify me on my talk.--Nasir Ghobar (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Nasir Ghobar is blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. These accoutns User:Harry_pot-smoker, User:Nasir_Ghobar, and User:HBO_watcher are confirmed related to each other.[11]. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

References

Please research and update the fact Ranjit Singh was from a sansi tribe not jatt

sansis and jatts are different tribe. In punjab every one knows he was sansi not jatt.Common this is wikipedia there should not be any confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.119.104.226 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Article clearly states that historians have mixed views as to his family origins, while some assert he was born into a Jatt Sikh family and others claim that he was born into a Sansi Sikh family, so there is no confusion. It fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 23:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Changes made without edit summaries

I have reverted the changes made by Jujhar pannu on 2 September 2013 1:43 and 6:09. Such a large number of changes affecting several different sections should not be made without edit summaries and sources, as it becomes impossible for other editors to assess them.
Please Jujhar pannu split your proposals, provide reasons for the changes, and provide sources, where appropriate. It would also be helpful to discuss major changes here before implementing them. Apuldram (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do much except change the layout according to Manual of Style shifting of sections. If there is a issue you have with the edit feel free to express your concern and we can change that section theres no need in explaining the edits as it is not controversial unless you can tell me something you have a problem with. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Jind Kaur

I have removed the paragraphs about Jind Kaur and Duleep Singh's children. This article is about Ranjit Singh, not Duleep Singh. The information removed is fully covered in the articles about Jind Kaur and Duleep Singh. Apuldram (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Another son?

I have reverted repeated edits by user Maharajah ranjit singh (talk) as they were unsourced and unexplained. The edits seem to be based on belief that Ranjit Singh had a son named Jaswant' Singh. There have been and are many people with that name.

• JS (1775–1840) Raja of Nābhā, was born before Ranjit Singh;
• JS (1896–1964) was born long after the death of Ranjit Singh;
• several living today, a politician, a hockey player, an army commander, an author.

The edit may be restored if an accessible reliable source is found to support the claim. Apuldram (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Maharajah ranjit singh (talk) has again made the same contraversial unsourced edit without any explanation. If there is verifiable evidence that Ranjit Singh had a son name Jaswant Singh, this is the place to discuss it. Apuldram (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Further information

• Professor J. S. Grewal, on page 120 of his authoritative book The Sikhs of the Punjab lists the sons of Ranjit Singh as Kharak Singh, Sher Singh, Tara Singh, Pashaura Singh, Kasmira Singh, Multana Singh and Dalip Singh. There is no mention of a Jaswant Singh anywhere in the book.
• The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism, published by Punjabi University Patiala has articles on the sons. It does not show a Jaswant Singh as a son of Ranjit Singh. It shows three people named Jaswant Singh. One was born in 1775, one in 1881, one in 1896. None of them could have been a son of Ranjit Singh.
• Appendix XL of The History of the Sikhs by Joseph Davey Cunningham shows the sons of Ranjit Singh as Kharak Singh, Sher Singh, Tara Singh, Pashaura Singh, Kasmira Singh and Dalip Singh. There is no mention of a Jaswant Singh.
  

In the light of this and since Maharajah ranjit singh first raised this in August 2013 and has not yet provided a source for his claim, I will restore the status quo ante in the relevant articles he has modified (Ranjit Singh, Kharak Singh, Nau Nihal Singh and File:Appendix XL Sukerchakia Genealogy).
The edits can be restored if MRS provides a verifiable reliable source. Apuldram (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Generals

Can anyone provide a sound, source-based reason as to why these specific generals are listed in the Generals section? Per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, I believe it's better to leave the entire list on the list page (the one linked with the Main template). If we're going to put only a subset of those generals here, we need a specific justification as to why these are more important--because, of course, listing only some on this page clearly implies that these are more important than the ones that are left out.

What would be best is if we could keep one or two sentences here, and no list. The sentence could provide some factual overview of the fact that Singh had many different generals...but I know nothing about the subject matter itself, so I don't know what to put there. We could put basically the same sentence as starts off List of generals of Ranjit Singh, and even use that list. Would that be a better solution than a blank section? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism article ‘’Army of Maharaja Ranjit Singh’’ by ‘’Gulcharan Singh’’ (find it under A in the Encyclopaedia) is a useful source. It mentions eleven generals by name in the text, but does not put rhem into a list. I suggest that the whole sub-section ‘’Ranjit Singh’s Generals’’ should be removed. It’s not very interesting just to list them. The various generals and commanders could be mentioned in the text describing their exploits. Apuldram (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Apuldram (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

doubts regarding sikhs and muslims

British tried to conquer afganisthan , pakistan and are unable to do it even after 3 times. It is the miracle of Ranjeeth Singh that made Pakistan and become India. He had handed over the Pakistan to East India company under some understanding /treaty along with huge amount of money including Kohinoor Diamond and at the time of India partition there is no evidence that Britishers or the Indians consulted Ranjeeth sigh or his heirs. Until and unless people know the understanding between Britishers and Ranjeeth singh no one will be able to say "pakistan is a muslim country or a sikh country". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.6.57.119 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

New Paragraph: Punishment by the Akal Takht

I am going to start a new paragraph, about the punishment of MRS by Akali Phula Singh, the then head of the Akal Takht (then called Akal Bunga), which was (and still is): " the highest seat of earthly authority of the Khalsa (the collective body of the Sikhs)". I do have couple of sources. Any objections? Gurbar Akaal IIਦੇਗਤੇਗਫ਼ਤੇਹII IIਗੁਰਬਰਅਕਾਲII 10:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are writing about the punishment described in Akali Phula Singh#Punishment of Ranjit Singh. I support mentioning it here as well, but briefly. Please don't overdo it. Apuldram (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will try not to "overdo it". Gurbar Akaal IIਦੇਗਤੇਗਫ਼ਤੇਹII IIਗੁਰਬਰਅਕਾਲII 09:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Done Gurbar Akaal IIਦੇਗਤੇਗਫ਼ਤੇਹII IIਗੁਰਬਰਅਕਾਲII 15:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ranjit Singh, Mosques -> Gurdwaras

@Willard84: Did you copy this from some other or earlier wikipedia article, after checking the sources? If so, please disclose the original article. Which page number is the quote "Sunehri Mosque was converted into a Gurudwara after neighbouring Sikh residents complained that the Muslim call to prayer was disturbing them" in The Panjab Past and Present from? Similarly, which page number of Rajmohan Gandhi is "reverted to a mosque in the late 1820s after Ranjit Singh" from? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is the quote

Sunehri mosque discussion

Lafont has written of Lahore’s Sunehri Mosque, built in 1753 by the Mughal officer Nawab Bhikari Khan, who, as we saw in chapter 2, was killed in 1754 by, among others, Mughlani Begum. Noting that the mosque was turned into a gurdwara ‘when the Sikhs took over’ (presumably before Ranjit Singh began his rule), Lafont also informs us that in the late 1820s a group of the Durbar’s Muslim officers persuaded the Maharaja to restore it as a mosque. They were supported by the Fakir brothers and also by Jean Francois Allard, an important French officer in the Maharaja’s service, who provided personal funds for redoing the mosque’s golden domes.70 Gandhi, Rajmohan. Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten (Kindle Locations 3154-3159). Aleph Book Company. Kindle Edition.

But this is immediately followed by another paragraph

mosques in general

According to Lafont, after Ranjit Singh took over in Lahore, the city’s Muslim community ‘continued to enjoy the possession of most of its mosques and sacred monuments’, though, adds the Frenchman, the tomb and mosque of Shah Sharaz (d. 1692) were destroyed to make a ditch designed to protect important buildings.72 Other Mughal-era monuments that were damaged, or raided for marble, included the graceful tomb of Jahangir. Gandhi, Rajmohan. Punjab: A History from Aurangzeb to Mountbatten (Kindle Locations 3163-3167). Aleph Book Company. Kindle Edition.

Willard's selective cherry-picking doesn't add much to one's confidence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

He also known as one-eyed Sikh worrior

I have reverted an incorrect edit by Jagat jit singh.

@Jagat jit singh: You are incorrect. The source does not state "He also known as one-eyed Sikh worrior", nor even a grammatical correctly spelt version of that. Please read the source more carefully. Apuldram (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Koh-i-Noor

I have reverted the edit by Satnamsingh911, as the information it provided about the Koh-i-Noor is unsourced and incorrect. Shah Shuja did not present the diamond to Ranjit Singh as a gift. It was payment for the Sikh invasion of Kashmir and the safe delivery of Shah Shuja, who was in detention there, to his wife and family. Ranjit Singh kept his side of the bargain, but the Shah attempted to renege. Ranjit Singh placed the Shah under arrest until the Shah at last agreed to honour the deal. Source: Ranjit Singh Maharaja of the Punjab by Khushwant Singh, chapter 10, pages 112-7, Penguin Books India, 2008.

Also the edit broke the link to the Indian Subcontinent by describing it inexplicably as the southern region of Asia. There were also errors of grammar and punctuation. Apuldram (talk) 21:53, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content and sources

@47.31.237.172: please do not edit war or remove reliable sources and sourced content. Please explain your concerns. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2018

Please change "He also directed construction of two of the most sacred Sikh temples, being the birthplace and place of assassination of Guru Gobind Singh - Takht Sri Patna Sahib and Takht Sri Hazur Sahib, respectively - whom he much admired." to "He also directed the construction of two of the most sacred Sikh temples, one being the birthplace of the tenth Sikh guru and the place where Guru Gobind Singh left this world for the heavenly abode."

Reason Though an attempt to assassinate Guru Gobind Singh Ji was done by men of Nawab Wazir Khan of Sirhind, he did not die because of that attack. He had partially recovered from that wound when he tried to tighten a bow string and in that process injured himself again. SGPC is the management body of all the gurudwara's (Sikh temples) in the North India region. Also, while writing about the death of a sikh Guru, Sikhs prefer to address this moment as 'leaving the world for the heavenly abode' instead of 'died'. It is done out of respect to a person whom millions consider their god.

Thank you Shubhamrayat (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done per MOS:EUPHEMISM. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Source Misrepresentation

Actual comments in the referenced source from Ranjit Singh Encyclopædia Britannica, Khushwant Singh (2015) : "In 1838 he agreed to a treaty with the British viceroy Lord Auckland to restore Shah Shojāʿ to the Afghan throne at Kabul. In pursuance of that agreement, the British Army of the Indus entered Afghanistan from the south, while Ranjit Singh’s troops went through the Khyber Pass and took part in the victory parade in Kabul. Shortly afterward, Ranjit Singh was taken ill, and he died at Lahore in June 1839—almost exactly 40 years after he entered the city as a conqueror. In little more than six years after his death, the Sikh state he had created collapsed because of the internecine strife of rival chiefs."

But one of the editor states using the same reference "In 1839, Ranjit Singh with his troops marched into Kabul to take part in the victory parade along with the British after restoring Shah Shoja to the Afghan throne at Kabul. This subsequently began the first Anglo-Afghan war, resulting in a decisive Afghan victory.[5]"

Isn't this source misrepresentation? WorldWikiAuthorOriginal (talk) 07:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

No, it is vandalism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was Sandhawalia Jatt

Maharaja Ranjit Singh was born into a Sandhanwalia Jat family.here is reference (1.) Pedigree table prepared by Maharaja Duleep Singh Sandhawalia, Displayed at Sikh Gallery Museum, Lahore fort, Pakistan.

(2.) Shizra Nisab , 1852-1853, from Government Revenue Record , Village Raja Sansi, Tehsil Ajnala, District Amritsar.

(3.) The Panjab Chiefs -1865, by Lepel.H. Griffin. Published in Lahore.

(4.)Shizra Nisab 1938-1939 , Government Revenue Record , Village Rajasansi, Amritsar Ranveer singh rana (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes and we provid a source Chillmulli (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)