Talk:Insurgency in Punjab, India

Sources for claims by KPS Gill?
Where is the source where KPS Gill is saying that 1,700 soldiers and 1,714 police officers were killed separately? CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I will add the quote. I forgot to add it yesterday. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @CrashLandingNew Another quote here. “ In the same speech Gill also said "only 0.07 per cent of the 16,000 to 17,000 people held for militancy in Punjab were convicted as people were afraid to give evidence." He added that at present there were 700 militants under detention in Punjab and 1,700 policemen and an equal number of army men had lost their lives in tackling terrorism." CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@CanadianSingh1469 you are supposed to add proper citation before making such claims on the page not when it is convenient, you have reverted the edit but have not still provided the quote from the book by KPS Gill. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Instead of accusing editors for making false claims, discuss before removing sources, not after. You can also do a little research yourself on your part like I did and found page 92 quoting, “1769 Policemen and (according to Gill) an equal numbers of soldiers - say roughly 1,700 - who were killed” Ralx888 (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * The onus of providing proper citation and discussion is on the user adding information BEFORE ADDING IT not the one removing it. "...say roughly 1,700" is an assumption by Jaijee not a number by KPS Gill. Provide better citation. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * it’s not about onus but you are being rather hasty with reverts committing edit warring. You could have discussed with the editor before reverting changes. You cannot decide if Jaijee’s is making assumption. It is what it quotes on the book that counts. Ralx888 (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That's what editors are suppose to do, remove unsourced and misleading information. The onus of providing the source is on the user adding the information.
 * No, an out of context quote can not be used as "source". Also,"...say roughly 1,700" is an assumption by any reading of English language. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * disagree. It’s not out of context quote and “roughly 1700 can be use with similar words within the info box to give readers an idea that it’s a rough estimate. It’s an estimate and not an assumption. You cannot go against the quote in the book. Ralx888 (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it cannot. First of all these are not even KPS Gill's numbers these are Jaijee's assumptions based on Gill's number for security personnel. You can not use an out of context quote as a source on Wikipedia. I am inviting other editors for discussion, this topic including the source is similar to the discussion on Operation Bluestar. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * yes it can. How do you know these are not Gill numbers when it’s clearly quoted in the book. You are making your own personal predictions and rather misinterpreting what the book quotes.Ralx888 (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not quoted. read again. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * These are not Gill's numbers, can't you read the words "say" and "roughly". Provide the quote where these numbers are clearly attributed to Gill, only 1,769 has been mentioned by Gill for policemen. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * unbelievable. It clearly quote not just in the book but also says “according to Gill”. What is there not easy to understand? Revolving in circles for no reason.Ralx888 (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What? "according to Gill" is clearly used for 1,769 policemen not army soldiers. 1,700 is what Jaijee is assuming. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * now it seems you are just playing around. Final time, quote says “1769 Policemen and (according to Gill) an equal numbers of soldiers - say roughly 1,700 - who were killed” Ralx888 (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Provide a reliable source instead of using a snippet view of a book and using an out of context quote, for clear numbers. If you want to add numbers by KPS Gill provide citation for his numbers not a secondary and unclear source with snippet view of the book.
 * You are providing numbers by Jaijee not Gill, simple. This is Wikipedia, you can't add unclear information with unverified source. Jaijee's book can not be attributed as a source to KPS Gill. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is reliable source and not just a snippet but clear quote that is being shown. I know this is Wikipedia and that is following the rules which you have thus far not obligated to follow. First you revert for page number then you revert for quote and now you want to consider that the source is not reliable when it has been used on other articles, please, spare me. Ralx888 (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * NOTE: In the same speech Gill also said "only 0.07 per cent of the 16,000 to 17,000 people held for militancy in Punjab were convicted as people were afraid to give evidence." He added that at present there were 700 militants under detention in Punjab and 1,700 policemen and an equal number of army men had lost their lives in tackling terrorism."
 * So, this is weird. There is a quotation mark at the end suggesting a direct quote, but there is no opening quotation mark that corresponds to it. So even if we assume that part of the sentence is a direct quote there simply is no way to tell where it starts. Now, normally that wouldn't matter too much. But given the complete disaster of Jaijee's interpretation of Marwah I would feel much more comfortable if we had another source confirming these numbers. Does anyone have access to the report about Gill's speech "Terrorism and Bunjab" in The Times of India of March 4, 1994? That would be ideal. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Should Senior officers be added to template
Should Senior officers be added to template? They were the leaders of police actions and were the ones that led crackdowns. I think they should be added. One Senior Officers is SSP AS Brar who is credited with getting rid of Babbar Khalsa in some districts. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)


 * If there is no reply then I will move ahead with what I have proposed. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I will go ahead with the proposal tomorrow if there is no objection CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Start
Adding on to my recent edit summary, the insurgency (in earnest) is generally though to have begun after the assassination. The article appears to be taking a broader view of June but in that aspect it can be further traced to the 1970s. None of these are wholly incorrect per se, just noting that third-party sources generally take a post-1984 assassination view, nothing should be lightly stacked on to the insurgency before that period without further corroboration. Gotitbro (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have read sources that state 1983 as it was the beginning of the increase of violence. If you want to change the date show some sources that support post assassination as the date. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a mere observation (for an edit summary I had made) from third-party sources and this page's history since its creation, don't want to change anything. Wanted to state that if any incident (before 1984/assassination) is to be tacked as related to the insurgency the source should specifically say so. Gotitbro (talk) 03:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Jaijee's figures in the infobox and body
Hey, I had some reservations about Inderjit Singh Jaijee's book, Politics of Genocide, so I decided to post about it on the reliable sources noticeboard and asked an experienced editor on their insight concerning this book. My reservations stem from the fact that at the time this book was written, Jaijee was (and still is) not a scholar in any relevant field, nor was this book peer reviewed nor does it seem to have any particular prominence or citation use by scholars. While it is true that Jaijee went on to author 2 SAGE published books a decade later, I don't think we can retroactively determine all his previous works to be reliable, also noted by user Bon Courage-. Jaijee being an activist as opposed to an academic should be accorded less weight as aptly pointed out by Kautliya3. I think it would be reckless and irresponsible for us to include a figure which is flagrantly untrue, in this manner, and it could have real-world implications. I believe that Jaijee's non SAGE published works should be used quite sparingly, if at all, and only if his claims are backed up by prominent/reliable scholars or institutions; his SAGE published works are fine to use overall. If you have access to figures from prominent human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, we should use those sources directly rather than use Jaijee. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC)


 * please do not under any circumstances use Google book snippets like before. It is not appropiate and was deprecated by RSN. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2023 (UTC)