This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panjdeh incident 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Panjdeh incident appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 March 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
It would seem that a number of sources refer to Penjdeh rather than Panjdeh, including some contemporary ones referring to 'the incident'. Googling the words gave 6000 matches for Penjdeh rather than 4000 for Panjdeh, with top of the list for Panjdeh going to wiki. Sandpiper ( talk) 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Lord Ripon was not a member of Gladstone's cabinet in 1885, though I'd imagine he'd have been a widely respected figure on Indian policy. Could someone with more knowledge fix this? Who that was actually in Gladstone's cabinet was actually concerned about this? Looking at the very brief description in Jenkins's biography of Gladstone, it sounds like what was actually done was to warmonger the incident a bit in order to distract attention away from calls for revenging Gordon in the Sudan, followed by a compromise solution. john k ( talk) 13:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the article describes what happened more than 30 years after the Incident, and after a thorough change of regime in Russia. It appears to have no relevance to the article. Maproom ( talk) 21:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The upgrade I made corresponds to all the sources I can find. What else needs to be checked? Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The naval historian Andrew Lambert argues in a podcast that one of the reasons Russia backed off was the threat of the Royal Navy - which maintained shallow-bottomed battery ships for exactly such a purpose - getting ready to shell St Petersburg (I dare say Britain could also have choked off Russia's foreign trade in the event of war). Supposedly one of the main reasons Russia sued for peace in the so-called Russian War of the 1850s (the name "Crimean War" dates from the turn of the century - and it comes as a surprise to a lot of people that it was very much an Allied victory) was that Britain had taken out the Baltic forts and was getting ready to threaten St Petersburg. He also argues that Admiral Fisher's Baltic Project in WW1 could have worked and was very much in this tradition of maritime warfare. He does have a bit of a bee in his bonnet on the topic but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong.
I'd have to buy, read and go trawling through his books for a specific reference so I "leave this one out there" for the time being - it would be interesting to learn what detailed accounts of decision-making in St Petersburg say on the matter. Paulturtle ( talk) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Just dug out my old copy of Geoffrey Bennett "Naval Battles of the First World War" (first published 1968 - I read the Pan edition in 1983). He says in the intro chapter that the 1885 incident (which he doesn't name) revealed British naval weakness, with the RN scattered all over the globe, and our having only 27 modern battleships against 36 French and Russian ones. France and Russia were Britain's rivals at the time but weren't yet allied to one another until the early 1890s. Although Bennett doesn't labour the point there then ensued the Mediterranean Agreements with Italy and Austria-Hungary, and the 1889 Act which began a programme of naval building (said building was one of the factors in Gladstone's eventual resignation early in 1894). The two propositions are not of course mutually exclusive - the threat of the Royal Navy shelling St Petersburg might have been a factor in Russia backing down over Penjdeh, whether or not it was as decisive as Andrew Lambert argues, whilst at the same time hawks (as we would nowadays say) in the UK may have been horrified at the thought of the RN having to take on France as well and pushed for rearmament. Paulturtle ( talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panjdeh incident 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: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Panjdeh incident appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 20 March 2005. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
It would seem that a number of sources refer to Penjdeh rather than Panjdeh, including some contemporary ones referring to 'the incident'. Googling the words gave 6000 matches for Penjdeh rather than 4000 for Panjdeh, with top of the list for Panjdeh going to wiki. Sandpiper ( talk) 01:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Lord Ripon was not a member of Gladstone's cabinet in 1885, though I'd imagine he'd have been a widely respected figure on Indian policy. Could someone with more knowledge fix this? Who that was actually in Gladstone's cabinet was actually concerned about this? Looking at the very brief description in Jenkins's biography of Gladstone, it sounds like what was actually done was to warmonger the incident a bit in order to distract attention away from calls for revenging Gordon in the Sudan, followed by a compromise solution. john k ( talk) 13:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The final paragraph of the article describes what happened more than 30 years after the Incident, and after a thorough change of regime in Russia. It appears to have no relevance to the article. Maproom ( talk) 21:38, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The upgrade I made corresponds to all the sources I can find. What else needs to be checked? Benjamin Trovato ( talk) 22:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The naval historian Andrew Lambert argues in a podcast that one of the reasons Russia backed off was the threat of the Royal Navy - which maintained shallow-bottomed battery ships for exactly such a purpose - getting ready to shell St Petersburg (I dare say Britain could also have choked off Russia's foreign trade in the event of war). Supposedly one of the main reasons Russia sued for peace in the so-called Russian War of the 1850s (the name "Crimean War" dates from the turn of the century - and it comes as a surprise to a lot of people that it was very much an Allied victory) was that Britain had taken out the Baltic forts and was getting ready to threaten St Petersburg. He also argues that Admiral Fisher's Baltic Project in WW1 could have worked and was very much in this tradition of maritime warfare. He does have a bit of a bee in his bonnet on the topic but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is wrong.
I'd have to buy, read and go trawling through his books for a specific reference so I "leave this one out there" for the time being - it would be interesting to learn what detailed accounts of decision-making in St Petersburg say on the matter. Paulturtle ( talk) 17:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Just dug out my old copy of Geoffrey Bennett "Naval Battles of the First World War" (first published 1968 - I read the Pan edition in 1983). He says in the intro chapter that the 1885 incident (which he doesn't name) revealed British naval weakness, with the RN scattered all over the globe, and our having only 27 modern battleships against 36 French and Russian ones. France and Russia were Britain's rivals at the time but weren't yet allied to one another until the early 1890s. Although Bennett doesn't labour the point there then ensued the Mediterranean Agreements with Italy and Austria-Hungary, and the 1889 Act which began a programme of naval building (said building was one of the factors in Gladstone's eventual resignation early in 1894). The two propositions are not of course mutually exclusive - the threat of the Royal Navy shelling St Petersburg might have been a factor in Russia backing down over Penjdeh, whether or not it was as decisive as Andrew Lambert argues, whilst at the same time hawks (as we would nowadays say) in the UK may have been horrified at the thought of the RN having to take on France as well and pushed for rearmament. Paulturtle ( talk) 15:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)