Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Citations missing template

The first line in the article states "The template below (Citations missing) is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus" but I could not find any place where I could go to oppose its deletion. Please Help.Singh6 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This comment was orphaned at the top of the talk page. I added a section for it.
This was in reference to an obsolete template. I have replaced it with Refimprove.sinneed (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Did President Singh make any attempts to protect the Sikhs?

Did President Singh make any attempts to protect the innocent Sikhs from the slaughter? He could have used his authority and status to protect them in his presidential palace.

No he did not. No one would had expected such an act out of such a person, who for his supermacy and to save his presidential position, had signed the authorization orders of the attack on the Golden Temple, which had earlier given he men in uniform complete freedom to masacare innocent Sikhs in Punab at a masive scale. Between June 3rd & June 7th 1984 only around 5500 pilgrims and armed Sikhs were massacared in the Golden Temple Somples only, the figures from the rest of the Punjab peaking up in unaccounted highs. Rather than condemming the attack, he was seen walking around in the complex over the butchered bodies of the Sikh devotees fondling around with his red rose!!! If attack in the Sacredest of the Sikh Shrines did not instigate him to resign and show concern or raise a voice, no one could have expected any sympathy from him during Delhi Massacre.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.245.242 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The current title is wrong "1984 Anti Sikh Riots"

The word "Riot" does not describe the truth about the subject matter but misleads. The following are the problems associated with using the word "riot" to describe this subject matter: -

  1. . It was not uncontrolled as the word "riot" would mean.
  2. . The event was not spontaneous; nothing happened on the first day of the death of Indira Gandhi. People were gathered next day, armed and mobilized to kill Sikh and destroy their businesses in Delhi and other cities.
  3. . The other side (the Sikhs) did not participate in killing Hindus. As such, both sides were not involved in a way as the word "riot" would hint. The Sikhs houses and businesses were marked and destroyed. They were killed on the streets by police. They were unarmed by police so that they cannot defend themselves.

The usage of word "riot" is very misleading. The correct title should be "1984 Anti Sikh Pogroms" as the Sikhs in Delhi were helpless, victimized and under an organized attack which aimed to wipe the entire Sikh population. --RoadAhead Discuss 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Its linked from genocide page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#India_-_1984_anti_Sikh_Pogroms) and says riots. Its not true and as "RoadAhead" pointed out it should be changed.

Yes! And it's been documented (in "The Widow Colony" documentary film, among other places) that the policemen who were Sikh had their service weapons taken away and were not allowed to be on duty at this time. Also the police went to disarm the Sikhs before this "riot". This sounds pretty organised to me. It was nothing like a riot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Number killed?

I see no estimate here of the number killed or wounded, nor of the amount of property damage. I've seen estimates elsewhere. The article really must have some discussion of this. Interlingua 13:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The article is also missing more information about the sequence of events, allegations, charges etc. --RoadAhead =Discuss= 03:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PoV

The treatment of Indian National Congress is clearly partisan. The conspiracy/coverup needs to be covered thoroughly, but it needs to be handled as such, rather than hammered away at in the article. Added flag.

Changed the old tag to refimprove. There are references. Some are bad. Some need work. Some need to be added.

In taking some content out of the lead-in and into the body, I duplicated some sections, rather than simply cut the content and move it here.

Adding a cleanup flag as well. sinneed (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pulled a *LOT* of unsourced claims

"Mobs are armed with iron rods of a uniform size. Activist editor Madhu Kishwar claims seeing the rods being distributed amongst the miscreants." Relevance? Also no source. But even with a source...no relevance.

"Mobs also have abundant supplies of petrol and kerosene. Victims later traced the source of kerosene to dealers belonging to the Congressional party." Erm. Traced the source of kerosene? No. Maybe by magic. It doesn't have fingerprints.

"In other localities, the priority of the police, as later stated by the then police commissioner S.C. Tandon before the Nanavati Commission, is to take action against Sikhs who resist the attacks." Sourcable if so.

One section was overtly wp:BLP and very negative. I removed it entirely. sinneed (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor: inconsistent dates

See also section: 'H. S. Phoolka, senior advocate of Delhi High court who has been spearheading the legal crusade for the victims of the 1984 Sikh Massacre since 1983.' 1993? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaconway88 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

160 references removed? POV fork problem reintroduced.

I am little concerned about the removing a large amount of material from this article recently including 160 citations. Especially since it was done with out discussion.

Care to explain what specifically is unreliable about each source, including an English-Sikh dictionary?

This recent edit also created or recreated what the editor claims is a point of view fork?TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please pay attention to what other editors have repeatedly stated on the AfD, a majority of the references are not reliable and including that content is not supported. Also, merging without attribution violates our GFDL policy. In addition, the content itself is in dispute, so please do not merge prior to an outcome on the AfD. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 05:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
A few quick points: Sikhism is a religion, with Punjabi being the language of its sacred texts and the most common mother tongue of its adherents. Speaking of a "English-Sikh dictionary" makes as little sense as referring to a English-Muslim or English-Jew dictionary. Secondly, I haven't checked the dictionary TeamQuaternion cite, but a standard reference work in the area The Panjabi dictionary, Bhai Maya Singh, defines Ghallughara as:

GHALLÚGHÁRÁ ਘੱਲੂਘਾਰਾ s. m. Great destruction, loss of life, ruin; name of the battle which was fought near Barnala between the Sikhs and the Afghans under Ahmad Shah Durani in which the former sustained a loss of many thousands slain.

Lastly, while it is certainly the prerogative of any editor to make a merge argument at the AFD, it is not kosher to preempt the discussion by performing the merge while the discussion is ongoing. I'd request that we let the debate conclude to see where the consensus lies. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You are correct Sikh apparently is not a language. Here is the source cited. If I find out that this source is actually a fake, it will greatly change my thinking. Probably should see it with my own eyes, but to tell you the truth, that deletion debate was pretty stressful, I wanted to let you know that I read your arguments but I really need to take a break from this for a while. If us Irish folks ever come back to this article it will be in a calmer frame of mind. We have just gotten over our own 800 year long religious war and let me tell you folks, take it from me, these things are a waist of time. This story is a sad one indeed.130.86.15.178 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Punjabi-English Dictionary, eds. S.S. Joshi, Mukhtiar Singh Gill, (Patiala, India: Punjabi University Publication Bureau, 1994) the definitions of "GHALOOGHAARAA" are as follows: "holocaust, massacre, great destruction, deluge, genocide, slaughter, (historically) the great loss of life suffered by Sikhs at the hands of their rulers, particularly on 1 May 1746 and 5 February 1762" (p. 293). 130.86.15.178 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OR tag

I had tagged the article with Refimprove, as I find that is a kinder flag, but there was an objection. Tagging the article with OR. One alternative is simply to cut everything unsourced... the article will shrink a great deal. I think flagging is better.- Sinneed 14:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Riots vs. 3 day riot

It is not correct, and is not supported by the sources, to claim this was a single 3-day riot. It was a widespread period of unrest including murders and other crimes, multiple riots in multiple places in multiple cities. Please do not restore the singular riot without clear (multiple, please, as there are multiple reliable sources for multiple riots) sourcing.- Sinneed 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of government involvement

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_anti-Sikh_riots&curid=24305505&diff=357353950&oldid=357353705

Somebody should supply a reason for this section being marked as npov so it can be improved. I don't think the tag is deserved. Also Sinneed can you clarify what "way too much stew from small oysters" means?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"way too much stew from small oysters" - No, I really can't, please feel free to ignore it.
The section can be improved by focusing on government involvement, rather than focusing on the involvement of politicians in Congress-I. I do see allegations of government cover-up. More later.- Sinneed 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
It is presently a compendium of various bits of negative press aimed at the Congress party. It is one-sided, and not focused on the government.
Then it launches into aftermath, which is the next section. The bits not about government involvement in the riots themselves either need a different heading, or to be in the section in which they belong, and they need to be balanced or neutral.- Sinneed 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
All that being said, if there is a wp:consensus to remove the tags, I will certainly support that. But I think there is no chance of such a consensus at this time.- Sinneed 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at this specific section , there are only two sentences on the congress party, and they were there before my edits. I don't see why you added the npov tag in reference to attacks on the congress party in response to my edit, which does not mention the congress party at all. If you don't like those two sentences referring to the congress party in this section then delete them and remove the tag.

In reference to this article being an attack piece on congress; there are two sentences specifically attacking congress in it. The case against jagdish tytler does not attack congress at all and his party membership is only mentioned because of how the party reacted to him being charged. Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I read your note but I don't see how it relates to what I have said. You assign opinions/motivations to me which are not mine. "in response to my edit" - no. "this article being an attack piece on congress" - no. - Sinneed 03:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am assigning motives to you, I'm sorry, I don't mean to. When you reverted my original edit, I made this edit which I thought would help us reach consensus. When you added the POV tag with the "way too much stew from small oysters" comment (I'm not sure whether that was offensive or whether it was constructive) I thought you were trying to discredit the section and push your POV. Sorry about assigning bad intentions to you. Let's be constructive; I read your comment about the section being a collection of negative press about the congress party but when I looked through the article I didn't find it. If you go through the article and point out where you feel there is POV against the congress party and I'll fix it. Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The section

I *strongly* recommend against this kind of analysis, it is offensive to the adding editors. It is better, in my experience, to simply flag the section and let interested editors lend help later. But you asked. I do not plan to discuss this further. If you gather consensus that the flag does not belong on the section, I will not oppose its removal. Until then, please understand that I am posting the below at your request, keeping the flag in the article, and moving on.

The section is incorrectly titled and presents only one side, and does so in a strongly slanted fashion.

  • "There are allegations that the government destroyed evidence and shielded the guilty."Asian Age, an indian daily newspaper, ran a front page story calling the government actions "the mother of all cover-ups."[14][15]"
This is about coverup after the event, not involvement in the riots.
  • "Eyewitness accounts obtained by TIME state the Delhi Police looked on as "rioters murdered and raped, having gotten access to voter records that allowed them to mark Sikh homes with large Xs, and large mobs being bused in to large Sikh settlements". [16]"
Police not attempting to stop rioters is bad, and if you review, say, the tapes of Hurricane Katrina, it is not uncommon in riots... 2 police vs 200 rioters == dead police, angrier rioters.
  • "Time reported the riots only led to minor arrests and that no major politician or police officer had been convicted and quotes Ensaaf, a human rights organization, as saying the government worked to destroy evidence of involvement by refusing to record First Information Reports.[17]"
Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.
  • "A Human Rights Watch report published in 1991 on violence between Sikh separatists and the Government of India traces part of the problem back to the government response to the violence: Despite numerous credible eye-witness accounts that identified many of those involved in the violence, including police and politicians, in the months following the killings, the government sought no prosecutions or indictments of any persons, including officials, accused in any case of murder, rape or arson.[18]"
Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.
  • "There are allegations that the violence was led and often perpetrated by Indian National Congress activists and sympathizers during the riots."
Congress-I - Indira's party, would most certainly have had members who were *enraged* by her murder. And?
  • "The government, then led by the Congress, was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, possibly acting as a conspirator. Conspiracy theorists argue that voting lists were used to identify Sikh families.[5]"
The only nebulous (read: POV) bit about the government's involvement in the riots. Most certainly, the government should have acted *MUCH* more quickly, and in fact hindsight would say **IMMEDIATELY** on publication of her murder by Sikh bodyguards, to quell unrest. The government failed. And?- Sinneed 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ensaaf.org/ - Partisan site, not appropriate as a source. It's stated purpose "end impunity", etc. - Sinneed 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2, in hopes of further discussion. The anti-government organisations being presented as human rights and civil rights orgs are also no good as sources. International watchdogs and the global press have hammered away at the civil rights problems in India. wp:reliable sources should be readily available if these are wp:notable allegations.- Sinneed 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ensaaf

Ensaaf is a credible human rights organization. Here is a report that is a collaboration of Ensaaf and Human Rights Watch. By the way here is the definition of impunity:the failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and, as such, itself constitutes a denial of the victims' right to justice and redress. That is basically the stated goal of every human rights organization in the world.
You can't simply throw away a source because of strong wording. Here is Human Rights Watchs "about us" page "By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes." They are definitely considered an international watch dog but based on the criteria you just stated they wouldn't be considered credible enough to be included in the article because of a statement they have made.
A human rights organization criticizing government actions does not constitute an antigovernment source. Human Rights organizations routinely criticize governments with a lot stronger language than "end impunity"
To address what you brought up earlier the section could be split into "allegations of government involvement" and "allegation of government cover up"
"I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2, in hopes of further discussion." You really shouldn't delete references if they add to the article... --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I didn't propose to do so. straw man fallacy - See the discussion of ENSAAF at a number of articles and at the wp:RSN, if interested. Partisan site, not appropriate as a source.- Sinneed 21:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry be clearer next time. When I looked for Ensaaf on WP:RSN all I found was this where a person uses Ensaaf to push his point of view. I don't see how it is not a reliable source--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Clear: "I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2, in hopes of further discussion." - there is no way to be clearer. I encourage you to hew to a wp:NPOV. I am going to leave you 2 to your PoV push for now, and clean up later.- Sinneed 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
  • "There are allegations that the government destroyed evidence and shielded the guilty."Asian Age, an indian daily newspaper, ran a front page story calling the government actions "the mother of all cover-ups."[14][15]"
This is about coverup after the event, not involvement in the riots.
  • This can go in a new coverup section or aftermath
  • "Eyewitness accounts obtained by TIME state the Delhi Police looked on as "rioters murdered and raped, having gotten access to voter records that allowed them to mark Sikh homes with large Xs, and large mobs being bused in to large Sikh settlements". [16]"
Police not attempting to stop rioters is bad, and if you review, say, the tapes of Hurricane Katrina, it is not uncommon in riots... 2 police vs 200 rioters == dead police, angrier rioters.
  • well this is a problem because at the same time the military was not allowed to get involved so the police were the only government peacekeeping force there. If we resolve the current issues I'll include this with a citation. In [[1] the army and national guard were sent in to deal with the looters so this is not a valid analogy.If you refer to a tape please provide a video of police standing by watching looters harming other people.
  • "Time reported the riots only led to minor arrests and that no major politician or police officer had been convicted and quotes Ensaaf, a human rights organization, as saying the government worked to destroy evidence of involvement by refusing to record First Information Reports.[17]"
Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.
  • This can go in a new coverup section or aftermath
  • "A Human Rights Watch report published in 1991 on violence between Sikh separatists and the Government of India traces part of the problem back to the government response to the violence: Despite numerous credible eye-witness accounts that identified many of those involved in the violence, including police and politicians, in the months following the killings, the government sought no prosecutions or indictments of any persons, including officials, accused in any case of murder, rape or arson.[18]"
Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.
  • This can go in a new coverup section or aftermath
  • "There are allegations that the violence was led and often perpetrated by Indian National Congress activists and sympathizers during the riots."
Congress-I - Indira's party, would most certainly have had members who were *enraged* by her murder. And?
  • and it noteworthy. Your statements's callousness is offensive in the extreme.
  • "The government, then led by the Congress, was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, possibly acting as a conspirator. Conspiracy theorists argue that voting lists were used to identify Sikh families.[5]"
The only nebulous (read: POV) bit about the government's involvement in the riots. Most certainly, the government should have acted *MUCH* more quickly, and in fact hindsight would say **IMMEDIATELY** on publication of her murder by Sikh bodyguards, to quell unrest. The government failed. And?
  • and thousands of people died in the riots and the decades following as a result. it poisoned the political climate for years afterwards. the government not sending in troops immediatley and lack of aid to the victims is notable. what do you mean and?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no concept of what you are asking, and wp:TLDR.- Sinneed 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I just copied your previous objections and added a bullet about each one underneath. You said "I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2" so I wrote a response to your previous objections.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you would do that, it is not useful as far as I can see. I will drop ENSAAF, per wp:RSN, later today.- Sinneed 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold, and lets see how much we really disagree, I haven't seen how you want the facts to be represented at all, I've just seen a critique of the sources. I think if you edited it the way you think is NPOV, we would have less disagreements. so look I won't edit it until you've brought it to your standard of npov and we can go from there--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I will wait, see if some other editor is interested. I have been through this several times on these religionism/nationalism articles. The article is adequately tagged to warn readers of the issues.- Sinneed 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I will like to move the talk of efforts to help the Sikh families from the introduction. It serves no purpose in the introduction. It can come in some subsection. Surinderjeet Singh (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Remembrance - OR

The attack on the Sikh community in India is remembered annually by the Sikh diaspora, especially in Canada and the United Kingdom, countries with big Sikh populations. In the UK a remembrance march and freedom rally is held annually in June. A remembrance march and freedom rally is scheduled to take place on Sunday 13th June in London for 2010. The remembrance march will start from Hyde Park at 1pm and end at Trafalgar Square, where they will be a freedom rally. Many MP's and activists take part in the rally.[1]

The Sikh Pogroms are are often cited as a reason for some Sikhs for the creation of a Sikh homeland in India, called Khalistan. It has now been 26 years since the attacks, but no one has been charged by the Indian government despite several high profile people, such as ***redacted***, being known amongst the Sikh community as ringleaders in inciting people to attack innocent Sikhs. **redacted** and others were also implicated by the Nanavati commision, that found credible evidence against them, yet despite this no convictions have been given.[2]

This has been added in a couple of different forms. Possibly, if this is wp:notable it will need its own article, which could be linked here. Possibly, if it is addressed in the press, it may merit a sentence. But probably not. Is there any support to adding this section?- Sinneed 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is support for adding it, all this information is showing is that the attacks are remembered by the Sikh community and gives sources for the commission that implicated people but did not lead to any convitcions. This is hardly a matter of opinion but solid fact. Now do not delete this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.84.12 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I will remove the OR again this afternoon, unless it is sourced to published, generally wp:reliable sources, under WP is not a soapbox, wp:no original research. - Sinneed 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There are also wp:BLP violations. If restored, I will cut them immediately. Warning for BLP.- Sinneed 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Preserving some sources

EL cleanup, and I wanted to keep the possible article sources.

#Investigations

This should summarized and its contents used to create a new article. I won't do it now because the article is so short on the actual events but I think once the article improves the list of investigations should be moved to a separate article.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorporate into article

[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.36.173 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Pic depicting 'Hindu mob'

The Congress support consisted of both Muslim and Hindu, I do sense however, the sectarian rhetoric in some of these articles, if you cannot identify (with precision) the peoples in the photos, then it would be deceptive to generalize Bluecapsulesex (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Most newspapers describe mobs in captions as "Hindu Mobs" but you have a fair point.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

More information needed on other areas of India

This article needs to cover more than just the Delhi area because although some reports talk about it happening in other parts of india there doesn't seem to be enough detailed information on this page about it.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

U.S. court's summons to Congress for anti-Sikh riots

Just to apprise fellow editors. Just Stumbled upon U.S. court issues summons to Congress for anti-Sikh riots (The Hindu). Not sure where to add. Arjuncodename024 10:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sikh genocide not anti-Sikh riot

I believe a new title is in order A genocide is what it was considering the systemic effort to kill sikhs of in Punjab 86.182.220.73 (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

  • "Genocide" is what the Americans might call it soon. [3]. Obviously, with Congress in charge India will never call it that. We should probably see what the international media uses to describe it and atleast mention the term used by other countries or the UN.203.191.35.22 (talk) 11:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Sikh Genocide term is widely being used now. Its name should change to Sikh Genocide now. It has been presented in the form of a petition with some 45000+ signatures to President Obama[3]. Sikh Genocide petition has been tabled in Australian Parliament.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). A simple Google search on Sikh Genocide gives 1,380,000 hits. What else are we waiting for? There are enough reliable references per Wiki policies.99.179.23.228 (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Section on Role of BJP and RSS

I dont think there needs to be a separate section for this, since there was no official RSS/BJP order to its workers to protect the Sikhs or to at least abstain from participating in the violence. That there were Hindus who helped the Sikhs, irrespective of their political colours is a fact. Some of those Hindus happened to be RSS workers. Definitely, it cannot be said there no BJP and RSS worker attacked the Sikhs.Sachingm (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. 99.179.23.228 (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I have removed this for obivious reasons

Rajiv Gandhi's Remarks Confirm His Direct Involvement :

Then Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, son of Indira Gandhi, made a statement at Boat Club in New Delhi on 19 November 1984, on the birthday of Indira Gandhi, "Some riots took place in the country following the murder of Indiraji. We know the people were very angry and for a few days it seemed that India had been shaken. But, when a mighty tree falls, it is only natural that the earth around it does shake a little."[4][5][6] The remarks were deemed as insensitive by many.All the Sikhs were massacred within 1 mile radius of Rajiv Gandhi's residence . This fact and Ragiv Gandhi's immediate comments as above all point to the fact that the massacre was deliberately misconstrued by the Indian National Congress as a Hindu - Sikh Riot, whereas , it was actually Ragiv Gandhi's personal vendetta against the Sikh Community for the death of his mother MrsIndira Gandhi and 'Hindus' per se had nothing to do with the riots. Grewal, Jyoti. Betrayed by the State: The Anti-Sikh Pogrom of 1984. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0143063032. .

References

  1. ^ BSSF (2010-06-01). "Remembrance March in London". British Sikh Student Federation. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
  2. ^ Nanavati (2010-06-01). "Nanavati Report". Nanavati commision. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
  3. ^ https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=sikh+genocide+petition+obama&oq=obama+petition+sikh+&gs_l=hp.1.0.0i8.3242.8794.0.12088.20.17.0.3.3.2.542.3736.1j11j0j3j1j1.17.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab._5O9GFb0d54&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42661473,d.b2U&fp=f34f8acd934e2d1d&biw=1086&bih=695
  4. ^ "The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Nation". Tribuneindia.com. Retrieved 2009-09-23.
  5. ^ "When the big tree fell". Hindu.com. 2004-08-23. Retrieved 2009-09-23.
  6. ^ "Remembering 1984". Tribuneindia.com. 2003-11-02. Retrieved 2009-09-23.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KickingEdgarAllenPoe (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 September 2010‎ (UTC)

Changes to the article

I'm going to make a couple of changes to the article and anyone is welcome to help.

  1. Expand the "Background Section" to include more detail in general as well as the demographics of the victims and killers and their history before the genocide
  1. Create different section for the Delhi Riots and the Hondh-Chillar massacre, the Pataudi massacre, and other specific incidents or in different states.
  1. Include a section on Press, the Indian press, the american press, press censorship
  1. If sources can be found include the debate that goes on about the name (e.g. calling it Delhi Riots vs. anti-Sikh massacres)
  1. Delete the "timeline section" or at least get rid of bullet points
  1. Expand Aftermath
  1. Change "investigations" to include subsections on the various committees, reports by citizens like "Who are the Guilty", Court cases and US court cases. Also the Tehelka investigation on intimidation of witnesses
  1. "Impact and legacy" should detail how the Sikh community moved to majority sikh neighborhoods, the widow colony, intimidation of people

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 12 March 2011‎ (UTC)

Number of dead?

Was down as 30,000. The source used for this does not have that figure on the page given, and the only mention of 30,000 is the amount of those arrested and how many were in a march at Armistar. Also government backed genocide? I would like to see a RS for that one. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. All the votes except the nominator are against the move Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 02:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


1984 anti-Sikh riots → 1984 Sikh Genocide – The links 2-4 in the article show why this is a state-sponsored pogrom. Reading the page history shows it is vandals from the Hindu majority reverting to this page, attempting to rewrite history by calling the killing of 3000 Sikhs a "riot", when the articles show it was a politically organized, state-sponsored massacre. If Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia of neutrality, then this page needs to be moved and locked against these vandals who outnumber the Sikhs by a huge margin, and will keep trying to rewrite history to suit their agenda despite the evidence Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have any logical reason it should not be moved, or should we go ahead and move it 142.59.249.84 (talk) 15:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. As styled, it suggests that "1984 Sikh Genocide" is a proper noun. You'll need to provide multiple sources that show it is commonly referred to by exactly that title. By contrast, "1984 Sikh genocide" would merely require agreement that it is a genocide, although that's a loaded enough term that it may be hard to get consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Response. A total media blackout was in effect, meaning the only version of the story in popular culture is that which the Indian Government spread. I suggest looking at the facts we know, and titling the article as appropriate. In the links I have provided there is mention that it requires two sides to be a riot, where this was a one sided premeditated slaughter using voting lists from the government to locate Sikh business and houses. Recently a mass grave was found Hondh-Chillar massacre, where an entire village was killed and buried without record. Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per "the facts as we know". There are four sources cited in the intro. None of them call the events the 1984 Sikh Genocide, so there is no evidence to use that proper noun as the title of the event. Further, I didn't see the word genocide used in any of the sources. Some did use pogrom, but there's heated debate elsewhere on Wikipedia about using that term when the victims aren't Jewish. Otherwise, I'd give some support to using that term.
One other point to consider: by using the term anti-Sikh in the title, it's clear that Sikhs were the victims of the attacks and not the perpetrators. Changing the title to call it a Sikh massacre could leave ambiguity about which side of the event they're on. —C.Fred (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Response I would suggest you read the first article cited, where Genocide is used. And I would now question the validity and neutrality of your response based on the fact that you didn't actually read the articles, but are professing to have a valid opinion on the topic Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
You mean the article that refers to them as "Delhi's anti-Sikh pogrom in 1984" ? —C.Fred (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that article which if you read further than the first sentence describes them as anything but, and decries that the government does not own up to its genocide. If you users knew India, you would be ashamed for supporting this corrupt government. But you are either Hindu, or have no knowledge of India's "democracy" where state-sponsored pogroms occur every couple of years. One year it's the Sikhs, one year it's Gujarat and the Muslims. One year it's Muslims and Sikhs in Kashmir. One year it's Maoists. It is a totalitarian dictatorship that rules with an iron fist, and its name is Nehru/Gandhi Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone Else? The only reason it is titled this way is because it appeals to the Hindu majority, who have a long and successful edit war on this page. This is Wikipedia, where popular opinion is taken as fact, and the Hindus vastly outnumber the Sikhs. The only way to get it right is to recognize that it was Genocide, move the page, and lock it against all vandals. I will take any more questions on the appropriateness of the move, but I think the above shows how weak the argument to not move it is. Another option is to move it to 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms. Riot implies no premeditation. There is plenty of evidence to show this was state-sponsored by Rajiv Gandhi and organized by distribution of voting lists Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • News article from today This should help clear up any remaining confusion. From today's news http://www.punjabnewsline.com/news/sikh-groups-to-approach-un-seeking-justice-for-1984-victims/81299
"The gravity, scale and specially the organized nature of the genocidal attacks was concealed by the Indian governments’ portraying them as “November 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots of Delhi”. These attacks were neither “riots” nor were they confined to Delhi alone. In fact, as per new documentation collected through RTI, during November 1984, Sikhs were attacked in 18 states and more than 100 cities throughout India with specific intent to destroy the Sikh community added Peermohammad" Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone Else? Or are we going to move this page. The bounty of citations I have collected mean this needs to be done ASAP Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Response "Common usage" denotes the intention of agreeing to the majority being correct. As has been established, the common usage is not correct and has been manipulated by the huge Hindu majority for their purposes. The facts and the evidence presented above shows the case for the move, so to say there is no case is to look away in the face of evidence. Please reply to the above evidence and explain how those facts presented do not constitute Genocide or a Pogrom, instead of searching for common usage. It is the duty of an encyclopedia to present the facts, not present common or majority accepted lingo. Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Please review the article naming guidelines, which clearly state that we use the most commonly used name for the subject. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to Right Great Wrongs. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Yes, "riot" is a weak term for describing this. However, that's what it is called and per WP:UCN, that's what the article should be titled. --regentspark (comment) 20:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose 'Genocide' is way too strong. I checked for other WP articles with 'genocide' in the title and found the Rwandan Genocide (about half a million deaths) and the Armenian Genocide (possibly over a million deaths). Compared to that the 8000 victims in India pale. With all due respect. The article already calls it the '1984 Sikh Massacre' as well and in my opinion that's strong enough.  Yintan  21:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
8000 officially recorded by the corrupt government that has yet to charge the guilty. They are still finding mass graves. Hondh-Chillar massacre. How many disappeared off the streets and were not recorded as dead? In this backwards country birth certificates are a new policy. You are reading the official count from the perpetrator of the crime? Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 22:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is the definition of genocide. You will see that there is no minimum requirement of deaths, not that someone who can compare tragedies so casually deserves a distinguished response "Genocide - The deliberate killing of a large group of people, esp. those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Since I apparently don't "deserve a distinguished response", I'll leave it at this.  Yintan  23:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Does any family deserve to be slaughtered because they belong to a certain ethnic group? The negative connotation associated with the word genocide owes not to the scale of slaughter, but to the misery of being targeted and cleansed based on your beliefs. You do not deserve any response, and are despicable as a human being for saying what you said Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your open-minded, sensible and neutral reactions. *out*  Yintan  21:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • When you start arguing with an... Hiding behind policy is the final resort of the coward. When you cannot stand by truth, you turn to policy. Cowardly Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Everyone should be happy now The title stays the same, and the references I had put in years ago not to support "riot", but infact to disprove that they were riots, are properly attributed in the article as evidence of "pogroms". Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
No further reverts should be made, or changes to the sourcing. The sources do not attribute the events to rioting, and using them to source the events as riots is just incorrect. It is as simple as that. Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Yestitwasgenocide, how to put this. You are obviously too close to this subject. This was a horrible incident so it's not like anyone is blaming you for wanting to raise awareness, but it also means we can't exactly trust you as a "neutral" observer; you're an activist. According to your own links, say, http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/09sikh.htm , that only says that Khushwant Singh called the event a pogrom; the article itself calls it "riots" and doesn't appear to be a terribly high quality link regardless. The Times of India page is closer, but still.
Additionally... and I'm saying this to help your cause... you should understand that all the comments about how the mainstream account are "covering up" the truth are self-defeating on Wikipedia. Wikipedia explicitly published the mainstream version, not the "true" version. Yes, that means that Wikipedia will be "wrong" when the mainstream is wrong. However, changing that consensus is the job of scholarly works on the topic - books, journal articles, etc. - NOT Wikipedia itself, which is not the place to fight such battles. If you want to add material to the page to play up the government's involvement and claim these were more than riots, that's fine, but don't say the real truth is all suppressed: find some good sources that back up your position. Websites are probably not the best. THere must be some kind of scholarly reference or journal article on the subject, though. I'd start looking there if you want to change the article. SnowFire (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the many reasons stated above. Nominator's own sources seem to use "riots", and even if we ignored the common name, the incident, while undeniably terrible, does not rise to the level of "genocide." SnowFire (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:reliable sources and WP:neutrality. "Genocide" is a very loaded word and can only be used if it is a very common term used to describe this incident - which it does not appear to be. We do not use Wikipedia article titles as soapboxes; we style them according to what reliable sources call the subject. The proposer seems to be a special purpose account on a mission, but Wikipedia cannot allow itself to be used in that manner. --MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Beyond your ability to understand "The Sikh "Genocide Petition" will be filed pursuant to the "1503 Petition" procedure asking the United Nations to investigate what it calls "the systematic, intentional and deliberate killing of Sikhs carried out throughout India during the first week of November 1984" and to recognise the same as "Genocide"." http://www.sunday-guardian.com/news/campaign-on-to-declare-84-sikh-killings-as-genocide 66.112.191.186 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Under our NPOV policy, we should only use loaded terms like genocide when the incident is generally accepted by the international community as being genocide and is generally described as genocide by neutral sources. This is not the case here. In addition, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and the nominator seems far too connected to the subject for neutral debate. It is Wikipedia's job merely to record facts, not to be used as a platform to change terminology. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is only a platform for misinformation and promotion of popular agendas. Yes, yes, understood. We'll see what the United Nations has to say before you embarrass yourself further 66.112.191.186 (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Note that this charming user, who decided it was acceptable to vandalise my userpage three times and make personal attacks because of my comment above, has now been blocked indefinitely. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose per reasons above. Another "pogrom" fan here i suppose. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 08:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We're dealing with a fundamentalist here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Riots or Pogroms

Hi All, I have just read the lead and there are 4 references that call these events a "Pogrom" yet the article is called anti-Sikh riots. Surely that is not accurate as their is a big difference between a riot and a pogrom. Thanks SH 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Please read up on Wikipedia's article naming guidelines. I think "1984 anti-Sikh riots" is the WP:UCN. Unless it can be substantiated that any other name is the common name for these events, the current name should continue as the title. - Aurorion (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
As an experienced editor I am very much aware of WP:UCN and there are plenty of references where these so called "riots" have been refered to as pogrom's. In fact most intellectual, research papers, study papers etc etc refer to these as pogroms. The lede 4 references refer to these as Pogrom's here, here and here :
  1. Communal Crimes and National Integration: A Socio-legal Study By Praveen Kumar page 200
  2. The Performance of Nationalism: India, Pakistan, and the Memory of Partition By Jisha Menon Page 4
  3. Secularism and Religion-Making edited by Markus Dressler, Arvind Mandair Page 66
  4. Understanding Collective Political Violence edited by Yvan Guichaoua Page 112
  5. Crafting State-Nations: India and Other Multinational Democracies By Alfred Stepan, Juan J. Linz, Yogendra Yadav Page 84
  6. Pogrom in Gujarat: Hindu Nationalism and Anti-Muslim Violence in India By Parvis Ghassem-Fachandi Page 287
  7. Just War in Comparative Perspective edited by Paul F. Robinson Page 132
  8. Globalizations and Social Movements: Culture, Power, and the Transnational ... edited by John A. Guidry, Michael D. Kennedy, Mayer N. Zald Page 319
  9. Unsettling Sikh and Muslim Conflict: Mistaken Identities, Forced Conversions ... By Katy P. Sian Page 27
  10. Human Rights Watch World Report 1997: Events of 1996 - Introduction XV

.....and I have many other WP:Verifiable sources. Thanks SH 07:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Plenty of references" or "many other WP:Verifiable sources" or cherry picked examples are not enough to warrant a name change. I am not too knowledgeable on this topic, but a basic Google Scholar / JSTOR search shows that there are far more reliable academic sources using the current article title to refer to these events. Hence, I think the current article title is the WP:COMMONNAME for this. If you disagree and think the article should be renamed, please initiate a WP:RM. Thanks. - Aurorion (talk) 09:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I resent the comment WP:Cherry. Please read WP:AGF. The lede has 3 references that refer to these as Pogroms. I am using the references used in the lede as the example and have introduced 10 other books and reports on this topic. That is hardly WP:Cherry. Thanks SH 10:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for the poorly chosen word. What I meant to say was, there seem to be a far greater number of reliable academic sources using the current article title to refer to these events. - Aurorion (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
As you are well aware, things have moved on, what we all thought were spontaneous riots have now been shown to be organised "pogroms". The Indian Government has done it's own investigations into this. Wikipedia needs to reflect this. Perhaps we could add something into the article, if not change the title. I've asked an administrator to look into this. Thanks SH 10:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
While I agree that the English language word 'riot' is not descriptive of the carnage in 1984, the reality is that those events are called riots and so we're forced to use that name per WP:UCN. If 'pogrom' is also used by reliable sources, perhaps those views can be outlined in a section (perhaps titled "The riots as a pogrom"). --regentspark (comment) 14:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Lets just make sure Wikipedia does not become a front for Khalistani's and the Congress Party to promote their own agendas. Thanks SH 09:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, years ago I added these links to show it was genocide, and had the page moved to 1984 Sikh Genocide. As Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia and instead is instead a biased social commentary catering to the majority, the Hindu community which vastly outnumbers the Sikh community keeps having it moved back to this page, and they replace the lead wording with riots. Someone needs to come in and move the page, and have it locked against Hindu vandals, but there are no Sikh admins. This is the problem with Wikipedia - majority rules even in the face of cited evidence 66.112.191.186 (talk) 11:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hindu vandals keep an eye on this page to promote their agenda. There needs to be third party moderation at this point as it is clear that they want to rewrite history. A request for moderation needs to be filed, and this page needs to be locked against Hindu vandals Yesitwasgenocide (talk) 11:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the article: "The Central Bureau of Investigation, the main Indian investigating agency, is of the opinion that the acts of violence were organized with the support from the then Delhi police officials and the central government headed by Indira Gandhi's son, Rajiv Gandhi." If this is true, how can we call these events riots. We must find some other words to describe it whether it be pogroms, massacre, genocide or just simple plain violence. To call these events riots is a serious misrepresentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirbhai1699 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If the investigative agency CBI itself is calling these events as organized, how can we still call them riots. Riots erupt spontaneously. But pogroms, massacres and genocides are always organized. So please have a second look at the name of this article. To call these events riots is a grave misrepresentation of what actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirbhai1699 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> 1984 anti-Sikh riots: Arvind Kejriwal demands special investigation team probe(Lihaas (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)).

Staged Trigger?

The end of the first paragraph uses the undefined term "staged trigger". It needs to be explained. The term "Staged" for example implies that the train fire was staged by the rioters. Since the train fire victims were Hindu and so were most of the rioters, this means that Hindus sacrificed 59 of their own in order to justify a killing spree against Muslims. Since that is counter-intuitive, the author should state it explicitly instead of implying it. Otherwise, the phrase "staged trigger" should be shortened to "trigger". Sooku (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wrong article. --regentspark (comment) 17:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this news or more ?!

Because it seems the discussion below tangentially is pushing the discussion towards calling it a genocide as something as "Radical", here is a link from the former advisor to the white house on South Asia's article in Washington Post India’s new prime minister promised to investigate a genocide against Sikhs. Why hasn’t he? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjcoder (talk • contribs) 03:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Friends, I AM a little confused and I want to have Your view on this news article "Radical Sikh groups petition UNHRC to recognise 1984 massacre as ‘genocide’" that whether adding content (title) from the news article would be in accordance with the policy WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER or not ?! Sincerely, ← Abstruce 16:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that we shouldn't add it. Radical groups will, by definition, raise these sorts of petitions but it is unlikely that the petitions will rise up to the level that they be included in an encyclopedia. Actually, I'd say the same about your Obama administration addition to the article. I don't think it adds anything worth adding. --regentspark (comment) 16:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I see What you did there. Here is a better link It’s Time India Accept Responsibility for Its 1984 Sikh Genocide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjcoder (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It's genocide not a riot.

Indian machinery has been working since 1984 to make genocide appear like a riot. Indian newspapers, alone, are thus not a credible source. International bodies have termed 1984 Sikh massacre as a genocide and therefore, page name has to be changed.

Also, the contents o this page clearly illustrate that 1984 Sikh massacre was not a riot. therefore, title needs to be changed to fit the content more appropriately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvog (talk • contribs) 04:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Unvog: This has been discussed multiple time in the past. And consensus has always been to keep the name at "riots". This is the name widely used by Indian as well as international media. Also read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:15, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
@Vigyani: With all due respect, discussion in the past does not make an argument valid or invalid. The neutrality of calling a genocide a riot is highly debatable. As per Merriam Webster dictionary Genocide means "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." Riot means "a situation in which a large group of people behave in a violent and uncontrolled way". 3000+ people killed in one day of a particular community falls in the first category. Sirdaar (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Sirdaar: I was not passing any judgement on whether it was a genocide or a riot. It may very well be a genocide. But the titles in Wikipedia are determined by the most commonly used term, which is riot. See WP:COMMONNAME. Also see this move request, where everyone opposed the move. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 12:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Vigyani: Thank you for taking the time to respond and for your neutrality, and especially for the link to prior discussion. I'm pretty sure this will not be the last voting we see. I'm still learning the ropes of being a half ass wikipedian. Although, I have to say, I'm seeing a completely different picture of mostly everyone voting one way on [[4]] Waiting and watching and learning. Thank you. Sirdaar (talk) 08:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
hmm. Will take this to your talk page. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 08:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

G-word revisited

New source: "1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Were Genocide, Says Rajnath Singh". NDTV. 26 December 2014. Retrieved 31 December 2014.

Relevant quote: "Calling the 1984 anti-Sikh riots 'genocide', Mr Singh said, 'It was not riot, it was genocide instead. Hundreds of innocent people were killed. The pain of the kin of riot victims cannot be compensated by even paying crores of rupees.'"

In light of this, where should we integrate this into the article? I don't think we should wholesale replace "riots" with "genocide". However, we at least need a sentence on this description, IMHO, somewhere in the article. I'm also not sure we can (yet) say "1984 Sikh genocide", since that title has not been used. —C.Fred (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one sentence in the "Impact and legacy" section. No need to wholesale replace the term. --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 01:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd say modifying the sentence The Akal Takht, the governing religious body of Sikhism, considers the killings to be a genocide to read The Akal Takht, the governing religious body of Sikhism, and Rajnath Singh, a senior minister in India's cabinet, have called the killings a genocide. Until it is discussed as a genocide in the scholarly world, we shouldn't give much weight to that term in the article. --regentspark (comment) 13:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I have just removed a recent change, it attributed to Rajnath Singh, the politician. I know that his opinion can be important but only if it has been discussed by relevant scholars. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The figure of 8,000 deaths is based on a newspaper article that does not cite its sources. The number of deaths is an important question, and must be based on real evidence.

Some clean up

Sock sections and good faith responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As part of some clean up, I removed the second paragraph in the introduction. It seemed to be out of place. Docxx (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Background Section

The background section appears non-neutral, presenting only one side of the story. It seems to be an attempt to justify the attack on the Golden temple.

One option is to add the other side of the story (such as the belief that the Indian Army had been planning the attack for years; many of the killings in Punjab were actually state sponsored to defame the Sikhs, ....).

However since this background section is not the central piece of this article, expanding it even further would be a major distraction. I propose to reduce the current contents of the Section, while making it more neutral. Docxx (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I edited the section to make it neutral. While doing this, I copied some text from other Wikipedia articles. I am assuming that is not a problem. Docxx (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I reverted your changes. Note that neutrality comes from the way sources treat opinions, facts, etc. Not from presenting all points of view with equal plausibility. For example, the beliefs that the killings in Punjab were state sponsored or that the Indian Army had been planning the attack for years would need to be backed up with reliable sources that state that these are plausible, perhaps even likely beliefs. The material as written originally appears to reflect what reliable sources say so you need to first show - using sources rather than your own opinions - that they don't. --regentspark (comment) 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Motive in Sidebar

I reverted the recently added motive of "retaliation for assassination". That can best be described as a trigger, not a motive. The notion of motive encompasses a much deeper meaning. Docxx (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted all @Docxx edits, as duplicating the same content in different sections is neither necessary nor encyclopedic. Some new text @Docxx added, some of which with cites that were non-RS and some that did not support what @Docxx claimed it did (e.g. 30,000 deaths is not supported by this cite @Docxx added here and here). A lot of newly added text was repetition, unencyclopedic in style, inconsistent with sources, POV-y (such as this change) and were violating WP:WWIN. I have retained one edit @Docxx made, because it looked okay. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots/Archive_1&oldid=1145719347"