Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots/Archive 2

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

an armed seperatist

"The sporadic violence continued as a result of an armed Sikh separatist seeking independence"? 176.11.187.23 (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed false allegation

Hi, I have removed the false allegation without proper proof which quoted that the riots were started by Congress party members. Please take care of that and read other reference material to get a proper idea of the event if you feel to do so.I am joker (talk) 19:59, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead Section

If you have any further comments on improving the lead section. lets discuss it here. Edit summaries do not count as discussion. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

yes, to conform it with the existing titles of these articles. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Motive field in the infobox

Content in Question is
motive = Avenging the assassination of Indira Gandhi

As explained earlier, regarding the motive, All the sources mention Gandhi's assassination as the trigger. Motive= "avenging the death" is also controversial, People were outraged and the violence ensued, the motive isn't established by any court and as Vanamonde suggested, we should get rid of Motive parameter. There is no requirement to use every parameter of the infobox, and they should be skipped especially if the values are not established without doubt.

Assassination was the trigger and not motive, calling it a motive is an opinion and not a fact. infobox is not a place for opinions but facts. This opinion is discussed in the article body. I had removed this as explained in talk page thread Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Need suggestion for perpetrators field in the infobox above. Since you have restored this again kindly explain your reverts. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the sources of the article but these sources support this parameter:
"Congress politicians instigated attacks on Sikhs to avenge the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi"[1] (p. 84)
"The massacre of Sikhs in reprisal for Indira Gandhi's assassination"[2] (p.120)
These are widely reported in reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Please read the sources you linked above once again, it seems you are knowingly or unknowingly making a fallacy of calling opinions and POV as fact. I hope you understand that reporting of opinions does not make it a fact. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem here, again, is that the infobox is oversimplifying a complex situation. The killings were obviously in response to the assassination. But "avenging" is problematic, because it is (subtly) laying blame for the murder of Gandhi on all Sikhs, which is a problem, because it was two bodyguards who killed her. This is a subtlety easily covered in the body, but extremely difficult in the infobox, which is why it should be removed. Vanamonde (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
We need to mention what caused these incidents. The potential problem is that we treat this as "riot" (per common name) but use "Infobox civilian attack" for infobox. Can we use "Template:Infobox civil conflict" instead like 2002 Gujarat riots, Bombay Dog Riots, Bombay riots or in fact almost all of the "riots" articles? After changing infobox it will appear as "Caused by Assassination of Indira Gandhi", not "Motive Avenging the assassination of Indira Gandhi". Maybe this will resolve all the issues. Orientls (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion by Vanamonde. I agree about using Template:Infobox civil conflict as the parameters are more suitable here. I have no concerns if the infobox say that these riots was Caused by Assassination of Indira Gandhi", because this is a fact, unlike "motive" which is a controversial POV. Orientls Please change the infobox as suggested, to resolve this dispute about motive. And keep the "methods" field as empty, as it is controversial and there is no consensus on using it. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Marking this as resolved with the change of infobox with suitable correction here. The problem about Type still remain as discussed in the next section. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

1984 anti-Sikh riots should be termed as Genocide

An edit of mine was reverted in which some suggest the events of 1984 were "not a genocide". Under what pretext are we assuming this was not a genocide? By sheer Wikipedia standards alone the events of 1746 are termed Sikh genocide of 1746 and 1762 as Sikh genocide of 1762. Then how is 1984 not a genocide? Surely Indian government claims cannot be taken seriously, as they will deny it at all costs. Then surely the ground facts should be able to decipher if this was a genocide or not, and the facts clearly add up to a genocide having taken place. What I'm sensing here are double standards. A "genocide" only seems to happen when Muslims are the culprits. However when crazed right wing Hindu elements engage in the same behaviour it's passed off as a "riot".

Furthermore, several motions and news articles to neutral news sources have already mentioned that this indeed was a genocide. For example:

I look forward to having a further discussion on this matter. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


Furthermore, I'll be inviting several commentators from Sikhs For Justice (http://www.sikhsforjustice.org) to add to this debate and have this article renamed rightfully to a genocide. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
The vast majority of sources refer to it as the Anti-Sikh riots and we go by what the majority of sources say. The term genocide is presented as an alternative name and that's about where it's going to stay. About inviting other commentators, please read WP:CANVASS, in particular the sections on stealth canvassing. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


I agree, the term should either be genocide or pogrom. It was organized violence incited towards Sikhs. " The first sentences denotes it as such. The offical title should be changed to pogrom. If you wish to keep the word riot then it should swap places with pogrom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.38.155 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some IPs have recently tried to change the title, I have reverted them and pointed to talk page for discussion.a year old Consensus in the above discussion states that genocide is invalid per comment by regentspark. Kindly understand that the title is based on WP:COMMONNAME policy. Anti-sikh riots is the common name and not Genocide. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to further add that California and Ontario state legislatures have also ruled it genocide - Numerous governmetn organizzations in wikileaks have aknowldged that congress gvt was repsonsible. Despite enourmous evidence, there are some people who want to inflict hurt and influence by referring to these events as riots. I've posted this before but @DBigXray is a hyperactive contributer on Indian issues and exhibits a consistant anti-sikh bias which has mislead on many pages relating to the events of 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosemuffin (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to further add that in 2015 Dehli special assembly recognized the events as genocide. There is some room for debate about whether or not it is a pogrom or genocide - but terming the events as riots are a deliberate attempt to decieve. @Dbigxray I have caught him before and he is consistently involved in deceptive anti-sikh editing. I'm not sure if it is deliberate or if it is because he trusts and parrots Indian news media. It's important to understand India has intolerably low levels of Freedom of Press (138th ranking) so it's understandable that many of the prominant editors from India may simply not know they are being deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosemuffin (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a little less ad hominem and more facts from you, such as how you know that a State and a Province have the power to rule on something that took place in India? Britmax (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect sir, I am not engaging in ad-hominem I am merely informing the forum of DBigXray, a systemically biased user who should recuse himself from Sikh wiki's. Now In reference to your question, I'm sorry but ANYBODY can see how silly it is. The ONLY people who can rule on THIS matter are FOREIGN bodies such as states (connecticut, california), provinces (Ontario), and Intelligence agencies (CIA - via Wikileaks). WHY? BECAUSE INDIA IS THE ACCUSED in this MATTER. How can you not see that? How can you ask such a question? You think India can rule on it's own behavior? Can a murderur rule over his own murder trial? SECOND, India has a freedom of the press ranking at 138th!!! 138 is atrocioius. Unforgiveable for a democracy. Where is the outrage from Hindus my friend? I'm tired of Pro-India, Hindu bias on these Wikis. SIKHS feel this every single day as their voices are shut out of the media - while Hindus sit there thinking they're country is all good. In terms of freedom of speech, my friend, India is worse than Somalia for Sikhs. And pro-India Hindus have proven time and time again that they CANNOT be trusted to comment on political divisive matters regarding India on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosemuffin (talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
WP:Cherrypicking of sources that use the word genocide is not enough to convince anyone about it. Please read WP:COMMONNAME policy, Just google "Sajjan Kumar" who got covicted today and tell me how many sources use riot and how many use genocide. As far as I see it a disproportionately high number of reliable mainstream sources use Riots to refer to the incident so the title is riots. here are some random news articles from BBC UK, DAWN Pakistan, India, etc and not one of them use genocide.[1][2][3][4][5][6]--DBigXrayᗙ 21:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "India politician 'incited' riots". BBC News. 23 April 2012.
  2. ^ "Sajjan Kumar conviction: Judges cite other riots, rue 'political patronage' behind mass killings". The Indian Express. 17 December 2018.
  3. ^ "Indian politician gets life over 1984 anti-Sikh riots". DAWN.COM. 17 December 2018.
  4. ^ "Nanavati Commission has 'absolved me' in 1984 riots: Kamal Nath". www.hindustantimes.com. 13 June 2016.
  5. ^ "As Kamal Nath Wins Madhya Pradesh Top Post Race, Akalis Cite 1984 Riots". NDTV.com.
  6. ^ "Who are the Guilty? Causes and Impact of the Delhi Riots". Economic and Political Weekly, Economic and Political Weekly, Economic and Political Weekly, Economic and Political Weekly, Economic and Political Weekly. 50 (23): 7. 5 June 2015.

Arun Jaitley, Indian Minister of Corporate Affairs, High Court of India, legislative assemblies of Delhi India, Ontario Canada and Pennsylvania USA and others have termed and recognized the 1984 Sikh massacre as a genocide.

Mention 1984 Sikh genocide[1][2][3][4][5] in opening sentence.

References

  1. ^ Sharma, Daamini. "WATCH: After '1984 Genocide Symbol' Sajjan Kumar's Conviction, Arun Jaitley Cites Kamal Nath's CM Elevation As Evidence Of 'lip-sympathy' By Congress". Republic World. Retrieved 18 December 2018.
  2. ^ Naqvi, Bobby. "Thank you judges for calling anti-Sikh riots 'genocide'". Gulf News. Retrieved 18 December 2018.
  3. ^ Banka, Richa. "Victims of mass genocide can't be left in a lurch, says judge in 1984 anti-Sikh riots case". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 18 December 2018.
  4. ^ "NDP Statement on the Anniversary of the 1984 Sikh Genocide". NDP. Retrieved 18 December 2018.
  5. ^ Rana, Yudhvir. "Pennsylvania recognizes 1984 riots as 'Sikh genocide'". Time of India. Retrieved 18 December 2018.

39.110.158.44 (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Declare 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots As Genocide, Says Lok Sabha Member (https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/declare-1984-anti-sikh-riots-as-genocide-says-lok-sabha-member-prem-singh-chandumajra-1963777)
39.110.158.44 (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Read WP:ADVOCACY and then read and understand that Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY, --DBigXrayᗙ 14:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
You are advocating to not term 1984 Sikh massacre as genocide in the lead, despite usage of the term in multiple reliable sources and within the article. Read WP:ADVOCACY and then read and understand that Wikipedia is WP:NOTADVOCACY
124.210.80.228 (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
It means that Wikipedia uses the titles based on the WP:COMMONNAME. Please read it and understand that the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. Genocide is a loaded word which is not predominantly used for this term, Riots is the most predominantly used term.
Google news hits for "1984 anti Sikh riot" are 53,000 [3] and give reliable independent media.
Google news hits for "1984 sikh genocide" are 3,160 and consist of opinion pages and statements of people.
The difference in the numbers itself should be enough for anyone to understand what the WP:COMMONNAME is in this case. --DBigXrayᗙ 23:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Need suggestion for perpetrators field in the infobox

Hi All, The infobox said


And I changed it to

Although there are several reports alleging members of the Congress party as perpetrators, this isn't confirmed. Should the article infobox mention this as alleged or just completely remove the perps parameter, suggestions/opinions invited. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it. There is nothing for the infobox to summarise until it is sourced. Reliably. Britmax (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Britmax, Thanks a lot for the kind reply and the action. Agree with your opinion. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I disagree with this removal. I did find some sources and will re-add the content at a later stage. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
You are right. Restored content with reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Orientls i had to partially revert your edit to remove poor sources, this needs to be discussed first and requires consensus to be added. See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR for relevant policies and then share your opinion. several reports also implicate RSS in these riots but we can't include all that in infobox.(see below sources)
That was not a "partial revert" but a blanket revert of a long standing content for which I provided quality reliable sources. There was no need of sources in first place per WP:CITELEAD. Your use of conspiracy theory blog links to oppose statements of reliable sources just shows that you don't understand what constitutes a WP:RS or any of the guidelines you are linking. Have a careful reading of each of them and don't revert per WP:BRD. Orientls (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Orientis, I have removed the content as a Blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME, refrain from re-adding this before a consensus on the talk page. consider this a final warning for that as BLP violations are enforced rather strictly--DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray: It is clear that first you are attempting to remove mention of congress. First you asked for reliable sources and once they were provided you begin to grossly misrepresent WP:BLPCRIME when we are not even alleging a specific individual of a crime. Now self-revert yourself before any other edit you make here or I will have to take you to WP:ANI for this disruption. Don't forget you recently came off from one.[4]  Orientls (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is clear And I have given my reasons for that. Your edits are against consensus, use poor sources and are BLP violations. You are welcome to participate and share your opinion to generate consensus and you are also welcome to approach any dramaboards to report me and face WP:BOOMERANG. I am above these intimidation tactics and I am not going to self-revert to restore BLP violations. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@DBigXray and Orientls: Please, can both of you calm down and not edit war or run to WP:ANI (in case of Orientls) for something which can be calmly discussed here. @DBigXray: you requested a WP:RS when the mention of Congress was removed and Orientls seems to have provided two which seem WP:RS to me. If you disagree or believe that there is more to it than that can be discussed here. Now, you have provided some sources which seem to be interviews of individuals from sources which are known to have a political bias (and we did have a discussion on this sometime back). Still, I am happy to discuss more on this here. I also fail to see how this falls under WP:BLPCRIME but maybe I am not seeing this clearly and you can illustrate your point better. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Although the source says the the perpetrators were organised by Congress (I), it cannot be assumed that all the atrocities were committed by them as opposed to people with other reasons for hating Sikhs. Therefore this is too wide a matter to be dealt with in a box soundbite and should be handled in the text. Britmax (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, I am calm, it seems you have not read the comments above properly, please read the comments above and find out who tried intimidation tactics to bully and threaten to make his way out of content dispute ? Then find out who ran and opened a frivolous ANI thread (that is still open) in an attempt to weaponize ANI? after knowing who did this, kindly give credits to whom it is due, instead of using False equivalence and showering your praises on "both".

Now talking about the content, WP:BLPCRIME states that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The same can be extended to organization, Congress in this case. Both sources only accuses Congress. None of the sources so far claim Congress as an organisation was convicted into organising this riot. Hence this is clearly against the policies to introduce this accusations into infobox trying to put defamatory sentences so as to infer that conviction on Congress was handed in a court of law while all that exists is accusations. Infobox is not the place for this.

I have given the links that support these points that even RSS-BJP were accused and cases filed against them in a court of law, should we then also add BJP in infobox ? In my opinion, I support the action taken by Britmax to entirely remove the accusation from the infobox.

14 FIRs were registered “against 49 BJP-RSS leaders for their role in anti-Sikh riots of 1984”. [5]

--DBigXrayᗙ 07:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox edits are fine where they are since they are backed with solid reliable sources. Others are correct that your rebuttal is not supported by solid sources and that nothing in infobox concerns BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This source [6] that Orientis added. A quote from it notes that

few arrested were quickly released on the behest of Congress leaders...Official inquiry known as the Mishra Commission gave a blanket exoneration to Congress (I) leaders... Congress Party leaders have repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the rioting.

So if anything this source only confirms my point that The infobox should not mention Congress as the perpetrators. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Read the whole chapter. It says "the blatantly planned and well directed nature of the violence was impossible to conceal".[7] D4iNa4 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That parameter is inappropriate here, as is the "motive" parameter. Both those things are too complex for an infobox. That Congress members played a role is not really in dispute, but adding "Congress members" as perpetrators in the infobox (without any others) is an implication that no one else was involved, which is nonsensical (and is certainly not supported by the sources in question). The "Infobox civilian attack" is a fairly general infobox, covering a number of types of attacks. Not all parameters are applicable everywhere: riots are, almost by definition, incidents without a clearly defined body of perpetrators. Both motive and the identity of the perpetrators should be discussed in the text, where it can be presented in a nuanced manner. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Source describes in the chapter that how Congress played the major role.[8] Treatment of congress as prepetrators is also described by other reliable sources[9][10][11] and they don't dispute congress involvement. So far the motive is confirmed, and reliable sources state Congress were perpetrator. If you have any other reliable sources for confirming any other perpetrator of these riots then we can add them as well, but there is no reason to remove "Congress members", though it can be re-worded. Otherwise RfC would be the only option if it needs to be removed since it is standing for long and sources confirm the information. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Those sources confirm involvement by members of the Congress, which is not under dispute. Adding "Congress members" as the only perpetrators is explicitly saying that every single person who committed an act of violence in these riots was a member of the Congress. That is nonsense, and none of the sources you have provided say that. I don't have to provide sources for anything. You wish to claim that all perpetrators were Congress members; you need to provide sources supporting that, per WP:BURDEN. The role of the Congress should be discussed in the body, where this nuance may be examined. Vanamonde (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It meets the definition provided at Template:Infobox civilian attack: "perpetrators – The group that brings about or carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act (use perpetrator in case of a single group)." If you have issues with "prepetrators" then we can just use "prepetrator". I wonder if any source will say that "that all perpetrators were Congress members". If there are any other prepetrators mentioned in reliable sources then you are free to add them. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a misreading of the documentation. That makes sense for a well-defined group (or groups). It does not apply here, where the conflict was diffuse both in time and space, including hundreds (probably thousands) of individuals incidents. Also, the very fact that you are interested in adding the INC as a perpetrator but expect others to do the digging suggests that you are basing your edits on the notion that the INC was the only perpetrator; again, not something based on the sources. Vanamonde (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It is still sensible and the fact remains that it is not treating Congress as less or more, according to the sources. You can mention multiple reliable sources citing anyone other than Congress. If these sources had named any other prepetrator then we would be already aware of them. So far they have named nobody except Congress. We are doing same for years. If reliable sources make no mention of any other perpetrator then we should avoid it as well. It would make no sense to remove the parameter only because you assume that conflict included more groups. Even that would need to be supported by source otherwise that is just WP:OR. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
That's not how that works. If you want to add an exceptional claim to the article, you need to demonstrate that it is supported by reliable sources. You haven't done so. INC involvement in the pogrom is discussed at length in the body, as it should be; don't try to shoehorn it into a place where it doesn't belong. Vanamonde (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • D4iNa4 it seems that you are either unable to understand Vanamonde's central point or you are showing deliberate WP:IDHT. There are multiple issues about adding Congress Party as a perpetrator in the infobox.
perpetrators field is for the "The group" which has to be undisputed and well defined. Which is not the case here. Facts of the matter are some of the congress members stand accused for their involvement. But no source says that they are the only perpetrators here. The incident was spread over number of days and multiple locations, violent mobs including the members of the general public, Congress, BJP-RSS members, smaller fringe group members etc were reported by media as involved. By mentioning "Congress party members" you are claiming a conviction and squarely fixing the entire responsibility. This is not the job of Wikipedia editors to fix the blame on a person or a group. If there are indeed conviction that fixes the blame squarely on Congress Party as perpetrator and reliable sources report that only then can we use mention this in the infobox. As of now the reliable sources only claim involvement which needs to be discussed in the article body. So far no individual congress leader has been convicted and here you are trying to add "Congress Party" in the infobox. Only the involvement has been reported and that should be discussed in the article body and not the infobox.
The Infobox's purpose is to summarise the article content and report the undisputed facts and not mislead the reader into thinking something that is not even supported by facts. Hence these controversial content must be removed from the article infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Don't comment on editors. You are still not giving up your false notion that the parameter concerns BLP[12]. To answer, "But no source says that they are the only perpetrators here", this can be better answered if you have found any other perpetrators being supported by WP:RS (not interviews or unreliable blogs). Above sources including HRW[13] source says "1984 anti-Sikh violence was led and often perpetrated by activists and sympathizers of the then-ruling party, the Indian National Congress, some of whom later became members of parliament or occupied posts in government. The police simply stood by, and were often complicit in the attacks. Instead of holding those responsible for the violence to account, many police officials and Congress party leaders involved have been promoted over the last 30 years." We can stick to this since this has left no doubt regarding how many perpetrators there were.
As a side note, I have reverted an overlooked edit made by an IP from October, that concerned removal of a long standing content.[14] Orientls (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
A lot many Human rights organisation have implicated BJP members, some of them e.g. Kodnani are even convicted in 2002 Gujarat riots by courts of law. Going by your logic we should also add a Perpetrator parameter as "BJP party members" over there. shouldn't we ? --DBigXrayᗙ 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
If you cannot find a source that says that they are the only perpetrators, then the issue is too nuanced for the infobox, and should be laid out in such detail as is reliably sourced in the text. The simplicity of infoboxes means that they have their limits. Britmax (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but the perpetrators field is inappropriate here and in similar cases. Even the source you just cited, Orientls, says often perpetrated. As in, its explicitly saying there were others. Vanamonde (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
So you are not disputing the attribution to "perpetrator" on factual basis? 2002 riots has a different infobox than this one. But I got your point. Since police investigations and corruption occur in every riot, I guess this will only lead to addition of governments as perpetrators everywhere else. How about we add '"pogroms" to "attack type" parameter, and remove Congress from parameter? Orientls (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
"Pogrom" is more specific here than either "massacre" or "mass murder", so if we're talking about replacing the latter two, I'm fine with that. If you're just trying to load that parameter with as many terms as you can find, no, I wouldn't support that. Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Orientis, I am disputing that, as I noted in my comment above. 2002 riot was an example in response to your comment. Sometimes examples do work. Anyway glad to see we are making progress. yes as folks have suggested, the perpetrator parameter should be completely removed. Regarding the "Type" again no clear word can be used, we have several options, "Pogrom", "mass murder", "massacre" "riots", Sikh political parties like to call it "Genocide", The incident is widely reported as "riot". None of these words are the best representative of the events and not all of them can be added. Besides, all these words are controversial, and riot is already mentioned in the infobox title. IMHO we should simply remove the "Type" parameter as well, cause keeping it there will only encourage IP and new user disruption who will keep adding words based on their POV. hence we should let the article body discuss the "type". The infobox already mentions in the title as riot, so we are covered there.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with the suggestion that "pogrom" should be added and should replace "massacre". While reading infobox I was thinking I was missing something and this was it. Type parameter is justified here. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, none of these words are suitable here. The only non controversial word for which most of the sources agree "riot" which covers everything, the article title is also riot for the same reasons. Pogrom, genocide etc are particularly controversial words. Pogrom implies the involvement of state authorities (police, government etc) which is again is disputed and controversial. we should remove this "type" parameter and let the Article body explain the incident. Again regarding the motive, All the sources mention Gandhi's assassination as the trigger. Motive= "avenging the death" is also controversial, People were outraged and the violence ensued, the motive isn't established by any court and as Vanamonde suggested, we should get rid of Motive parameter. There is no requirement to use every parameter of the infobox, and they should be skipped especially if the values are not established without doubt. Infact due to such problems some of the articles remove the Infobox Entirely, due to the problem with the parameters. While I believe we can keep the infobox after removing the controversial and contested parameters. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Further it is even strange that the article title and the infobox title calls it as "Riot" and the infobox parameter calls it as type= "Pogrom". Type and motive should also be removed--DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray People have reached a consensus here.  Show us where was consensus for this and this edit because it existed here for many years[15]. Don't remove content only because you are "removing as explained in talk page thread" [16], you have to get consensus and if you are seeing that people have stopped replying that means that they are no longer interested in arguing the already answered concern. If you still want to be a lone opposer to long standing content then try other methods of WP:DR (DRN, RfC) instead of edit warring. Orientls (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
"Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article. You need a stronger justification than that. After a consensus was reached to remove the perpetrator field from Infobox you added the same line on 3 Dec to the first line of the lead. regarding the Motive parameter Vanamonde has already made strong arguements in removing it to which I have agreed and no one else made any objections. Regarding the Type parameter, again you are trying to hammer back your own preferred version into the article. The discussion was left ignored for 2 days so the next step in BRD is followed to bring you back to join the discussion. So I expect a valid policy based and justifiable reason from you to restore all the three edits that you just reverted. Remember your preferred version isn't the consensus version and it is malicious to state that. No one here is a fool to be misled with such puerile tactics. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Content reliably sourced and should not be removed only because you are objecting. You don't get automatic approval to remove content only because people are no longer interested in replying something which they have already answered. If you believe your arguments are strong but people are ignoring then try any other resolutions described at WP:DR. Orientls (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Consensus isn't the counting of noses but the substance of their arguments. The same restrictions you are claiming on me, applies to you as well, you do not have any special authority to repeatedly edit war to restore your preferred content into the article, while others are can't. You should be aware that if you don't respond to the discussion for 2 days then making the bold edit is allowed to bring the participant back to the discussion thread, As I see it you are yet to address the concerns being raised. For clarity of the topics, and to avoid mixing of 3 topics, we should use this thread for the discussion on the line about "congress party", I am starting new threads below for Motive and Type field, so I expect a reasonable response explaining your reverts on all the three points. A talk page discussion is the first step of DR, you are yet to make a reasonable case for the content in question, simply saying reliable source is not enough. The congress party in the first sentence of the lead that you added. I don't care if it was existing before, since you added it you take full responsibility for that content and are expected to explain your edit why you feel it should be added. I had removed Since you have restored this again kindly explain your reverts. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to read all of this back-and-forth, but let me make two basic points; the existence of dodgy content in the article does not imply consensus for it. How well is it sourced? Was the content discussed, reviewed, or commented upon in any way? Second; the more I look at it, the more I think the "type" parameter is entirely inappropriate, because again it seems to be created for categorizing single incidents; "arson", "murder", etc. It doesn't apply here. Really what we need to do is replace "Infobox civilian attack" by "Infobox civil conflict", because this wasn't a single attack, it was a number of them. The analogy to the 2002 Gujarat riots is apt, because a number of scholars discuss them in the same way; they both had extensive state support, and included carefully targeted violence, but also harnessed majoritarian anger (justified or otherwise) and included elements of spontaneity (most sources agree on these points, btw, which is why I'm not bothering to cite them). These are not details that can be conveyed in an infobox; they are better suited to the prose. Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde to summarize, Orientis has agreed to remove the mention of Perpetrators from the infobox but then he has added the line "by anti-Sikh mobs  (notably Congress Party members)" into the first sentence of the article, to continue to push his POV, so he took one step forward and then another back. And this thread is to discuss this addition. The other issue about the "motive in infobox" has been resolved with your suggestion of infobox conflict. But then the problem about the "TYPE of conflict" still remain and he is not removing the contentions words neither giving justifications as you can see in the threads below. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC
This edit by Orientls was revert of this recent IP edit which he already described above[17] before he agreed to remove the mention of perpetrators.[18] You need to stop misrepresenting others. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
By re-instating someone's edit the WP:BURDEN of the content is passed to one who re-instates. Instead of passing the blame to the IP you and your mate should make arguments to defend the said content. I find this extremely amusing that after agreeing to remove this from the infobox Orientis added it to the first line of the lead and instead of defending you are now trying to pass the blame of the content that he restored. :-) --DBigXrayᗙ 09:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • D4iNa4, I have waited for more than 19 days for your response here, if you have nothing to defend this controversial line, I will be removing it soon from the lead. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Type field in the infobox

Content in Question is
type = Pogrom, mass murder, forced conversion, arson, abduction, rape, acid throwing

As explained earlier, the only non controversial word for which most of the sources agree is, "riot" which covers everything, the article title is also riot for the same reasons. Pogrom, genocide etc are particularly controversial POV words. Pogrom implies the involvement of state authorities (police, government etc) which again is disputed and controversial. We should remove this "type" parameter and let the Article body explain the incident

I had removed this parameter "type" from infobox.The article title doesn't agree with this type, it is not necessary to fill every parameter when there isn't a clear and non controversial value. I had removed this as explained in talk page thread Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots#Need suggestion for perpetrators field in the infobox above. Since you have restored this again kindly explain your reverts. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There would be issue only if it was not supported by RS but it is satisfactorily supported by reliable sources. See WP:NOTCENSORED. Orientls (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
No one is censoring anything here, it is a question of DUE vs UNDUE. Read Vanamonde's response above. When I asked you to reply, I expect you to explain your position and justify your revert. where are the reliable sources ? and why you think this deserves a place in the infobox ? --DBigXrayᗙ 11:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
According to which reliable sources they are "disputed and controversial"? They cannot be removed unless there is a scholarly consensus that none of these methods were used or we have consensus to remove "methods" from all similar riots articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Again you are trying to pass the WP:BURDEN of the content on me. you here are defending the said content and You have to provide reliable source that says this event is of this type and not me. the field Type was to clarify what kind of incident the conflict was and not a potpourri of different types of violence. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Since nothing has been presented even after 11 days, so far despite being asked This will be removed from infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots/Archive_2&oldid=902479800"