Talk:Operation Blue Star/Archive 6

RfC
Should the casualties number provided by Ved Marwah be used? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Marwah has not given any figures, he has made a vague statement in his book. Should the statement made by Marwah in his book be interpreted as casualty figures for army as their is no explicit mention of that. Also, should that be included in infobox or be a byline in the casualty section? CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment This RFC was preceded by a request for a third opinion. I have responded to that request above. Unfortunately it did not lead to a consensus. You can see my observations and proposals above Talk:Operation_Blue_Star. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't it clear form your observation above that Jaijee is just interpreting Marwah's words. I mean why can't we find a citation where Marwah explicitly say that there were 35% casualties for troops in the operation? We can't add figures on Wikipedia on the basis of a vague statement in a book. Also, this white paper that Jaijee talks about is not available, he is assuming there might be a "secret white paper" somewhere and he is also assuming that Marwah must be talking about it. This sounds more like a fringe theory than real "figures' from a respectable institution/source. CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Marwah quotes his casualty figure from a white paper which is not same to the public white paper. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Include, per below.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Don't include The figure is dubious and easy to misrepresent as the below discussion show. Agletarang (talk) 08:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  Include in text, but use "Independent estimates are higher" in the infobox The government numbers for casualties on both sides are disputed and likely influenced by propaganda/PR concerns. We should point out that independent sources estimate the numbers of casualties on both sides to be higher and leave the details to the text. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * For the reasons I have detailed in the discussion below, I now think that we should not include Marwah's number. We should still include the fact that the government numbers (for both sides) are disputed. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's taken me forever to really understand what's going on here, but I think this is probably right. I have to say, I'm somewhat shocked that there are so few third-party efforts to estimate casualties—just many various sources that say "independent estimates were higher".--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Don't include The RFC posits whether we should use Marwah's casualty figures, but wouldn't a more appropriate question be "Should we use Jaijee's insinuation that 35% of  the (alleged) 16,000 troops involved suffered causalities?". In my opinion no, given the discussion below, it seems likely that Marwah was not improving upon Rajiv Gandhi's disclosure of 700 soldiers perishing, but reiterating what the official white paper already said- a casualty rate of 33% (or rounded up to 35%) of the 1,000 soldiers involved in direct combat (Jaijee also acknowledges that Marwah was citing the official white paper). Jaijee then implicitly extrapolates that 35% figure to his claim to 16,000 soldiers, but it doesn't make sense that he would accept one aspect of the government's assertions, but reject the other and substitute his own version of how many troops were involved. Further, I would classify Jaijee as only a marginally reliable source given his lack of experience in academia, and the fact that we shouldn't use insinuations in an article of such a contentious nature. S8 (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Jerome Frank Disciple opinon
I wouldn't normally give myself an entirely new subsection, but it took me a while to dive into this dispute, and I figured it'd be better to include my thoughts here rather than make a giant post in the survey. So, I'm not trying to be difficult, but if you're hoping to get more input on this RFC, I'd really consider changing up the question. Think about a contributor who has no background knowledge reading, "Should the casualties number provided by Ved Marwah be used?" ... I'd suggest providing a bit more context.

This would be a little long, but based on the debate as I understand it, maybe:
 * In Uncivil Wars, Ved Marwah, writing of Operation Blue Star, suggested that there were "35 per cent casualties in a division-level operation." In another book, The Politics of Genocide, author Inderjit  Singh  Jaijee calls Ved Marwah's figure an "improve[ment]" on  Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's estimate that 700 soldiers had died. After providing the aforementioned quotation, Jaijee further notes that "[a] division is comprised of 16,000 troops". The questions are: (1) Does Marwah's estimate or Jaijee's description of it clearly show that Marwah was referring to military casualties, such that another source is not required? And (2) Are either of the aforementioned books primary sources?

Now, onto my thoughts:
 * Is Marwah estimating military casualties: I'd say yes. I actually think that the Marwah quotation is decently clear on this point (because what would 35% even refer to otherwise? the ... total number of people who were in the area at the time?), but the Jaijee chapter, to me, takes it beyond doubt—Jaijee writes that Marwah's estimate is an "improve[ment]" on the estimation of soldier death by PM Gandhi. It'd be quite strange to call the figure an improvement if it wasn't an estimation of the same thing.
 * Are the Marwah and Jaijee books primary sources? I mean, to the extent that we're saying what Marwah said (rather than just reporting the figure), I suppose the Marwah book is technically a primary source, but it's not a primary source in the way that WP:PRIMARY really cares about. (Look at the reaction section of almost any article and you'll find things like "This author said 'X,'" citing the author's piece.) The real question is what's the relationship between Marwah's book and the event. Marwah's writing is an after-the-fact commentary on the event. And Jaijee's book is clearly secondary—even as it relates to what Marwah wrote! Jaijee's writing is an after-the-fact commentary on Marwah's writing.
 * Should we say 5,600?—I realize this question isn't asked, but I'd strongly say "no". I see how we got there—35% of 16,000 is 5,600. And, normally, I wouldn't think that kind of math presents a WP:OR issue. But it's dependent on an implicit assumption that I'm not actually sure about: that a division-level operation is an operation featuring just one division. That's, of course, the most natural reading, but are any of us sure that a division-level operation couldn't refer to anything, say (throwing out a random number), short of 3 divisions? The information we currently have in the template seems to suggest that this was more than a one-division operation, stating that the full 15th division and 16,000 troops from the 9th division were present. (To be clear: I'm absolutely not saying that we should take 35% of 32,000 and use that number—I'm only trying to point out that I think we don't know for sure what "division-level operation" means, and, so, we should stick to just detailing the percentage.

I tried to form my opinion before reading the opinion provided by User:Random person no 362478479, though, as a side note, I have a great amount of respect for Random person—I once spent what felt like weeks trying to help establish a consensus on a page (I was providing a WP:3O); I failed, and an RFC was started, but then Random person stepped in and had everything sorted in pretty short order. That said, having now read that third opinion, I agree with almost all of it, though I'd say "citing" rather than "referring" in reference to the unnamed white paper .--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * But can we add vague commentary of one person in infobox? Wouldn't that mislead the readers? Which other conflict page on Wikipedia has mentioned casualties based on interpretation of vague statement of one author? I mean, we are discussing what Marwah meant by 35%. A mention of Marwah's commentary in casualties section is still understandable with full quote from the book but to add his comments in infobox, which has clear quantitative figures not commentry, how is that ok for an encyclopaedia?
 * Also, "35 per cent casualties in a division-level operation" mean a lot of things, it doesn't mean that 35% of a division was lost, it could also mean 35% of the soldiers who entered in the temple premises were hurt. A division has 10-16k soldiers, did all of them enter in the temple premises to fight? Jaijee's commentary on Marwah's book would have been useful had it been confirmed by Marwah. He is just adding his opinion on another person's opinion and than claiming some hidden white paper might exist. Jaijee has also mentioned different casualty figures as per different sources, shall we include all of them?
 * The point is that this will be a unique case on Wikipedia of adding one man's not so clear commentary, not an organisation, one individual's commentary in infobox. Imagine, some author making a vague statement about about casualties in Russia-Ukraine war and that being added on its Wikipedia page here. CrashLandingNew (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Having vague statements in an infobox is actually not that unique. Some articles have statements like "heavy casualties" or "heavy losses". Also a lot of articles give pretty wide ranges of estimates. Of course we cannot make the statement more concrete than it is. E.g. Jaijee interprets it to be a statement about a divison of 16,000 troops. That is most definitely not something we should do (also on his interpretation see the additional source I posted below).
 * The fact that it is a statement by a single person is also not in itself problematic. A lot of historical articles use estimates by scholars. Also Marwah was closely associated with the operation. Of course estimated by organisations tend to be (or at least look) more authoritative, but we have to work with what we have. It seems that the Indian government was not particularly keen on having independent observers.
 * The problem with only giving the government numbers is that they are disputed and we never should rely completely on official numbers when we have to assume that propaganda/PR motives may be in play. BTW that goes for the casualty numbers on both sides. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So should we just move forward with what @Jerome Frank Disciple and @Random person no 362478479 have suggested? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's wait a few days to see if more people will join the discussion. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional Source
Apurba Kundu: The Indian Armed Forces' Sikh and Non-Sikh Officers' Opinions of Operation Blue Star, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 67, No. 1. (Spring, 1994), pp. 46-69
 * Operation Blue Star left many scars. The approximately one thousand army personnel involved in the unexpectedly ferocious fighting endured a very high one-third casualty rate of 4 officers and 79 men killed, 12 officers and 237 men wounded. The subsequent government White Paper also stated that the militants suffered 493 dead -- including Bhindranwale himself -- and 86 injured, figures still much disputed. (pp. 52-53)

Note that this suggests that Marwah did not cite an unpublished White Paper. Instead Jaijee's assumption that Marwah was talking about an entire division seems to be the problem. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * 1,000 soldiers involved is a lie likely from the white papers. The white papers are filled with government lies. That is a fact. In reality Mark Tully writes: “…Brar asked his superiors for permission to use troops from another Division, the 15th. The infantry from his own division was fully deployed.” From this it is clear that more than a thousand soldiers were involved. The average division has around 15,000~ soldiers. Also read the template listing out the units. It is clear more than 1,000 are involved. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My point here was mainly to point out that there seems to be a real possibility that Marwah's 35% casualties were actually based on the official, published white paper and that Jaijee misinterpreted him. If we use these numbers there would be 33% casualties which is not far from Marwah's number. The accuracy of that white paper is of course another matter.
 * On the other hand remember that being deployed does not necessarily mean being involved in the fighting. It seems that not only the casualty numbers are unclear, but also how many troops were involved. E.g. here it says that the planning provided for four infantery battalions, specialist commandos equivalent to two companies, one squadron of tanks, here a journalist claims that at one point during the operation there were "nearly 3,000 infantry troops pinned down, hundreds wounded, more than a hundred bodies".
 * I think the safest way to go here is to mention in the infobox that independent sources estimate casualty numbers on both sides to be higher than the government numbers and keep the details for the article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * “Mary Anne Weaver a British correspondent in her report to Sunday Times, London June 17, 1984, observed: "not since independence has the Army been used in such numbers - about 15,000 troops took part in the assault."” from Jaijee CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, that's what I have been saying, we do not know what is the base for this 35% figure. All the troops of the division or all the army units stationed there, didn't necessarily participate in the operation. CrashLandingNew (talk) 08:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly, Jaijee is assuming there is a hidden "white paper" somewhere. This is borderline conspiracy theory on his part. We can't add conspiracy theories in the infobox of a page on Wikipedia. Also to say that government is lying but Marwah a government official himself is revealing truth is double standards. CrashLandingNew (talk) 08:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I've lost the plot a bit—haven't had a chance to deep dive. @Random person no 362478479, are you saying that Marwah's estimate may already be reflected in the current infobox numbers?
 * Regardless, I think including the percentage is fine. Either (A) Marwah is just reflecting the white paper, and it's just another way of stating those numbers, or (B) it's intentionally distinct from those numbers. Marwah's book meets the reliable source criteria, so I think that's all there is to it. @CrashLandingNew, I see the sense in your arguments, but I am a little antsy about some of them because they strike me as original research.
 * That said, I recant what I said about supporting the inclusion of "citing an unspecified white paper" in the article text. I think we can just report Marwah's number without reporting what he was relying on. (I realize that we could get into the Jaijee/Kundu disagreement about what he relied on, but that strikes me as a way too detailed discussion of the claim, since this is an article on the operation, not Marwah's estimate.)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * But Marwah is basing his numbers on white paper by the government, which has already been mentioned in the infobox. Why do we have to add Marwah's "35%" number in the infobox when it doesn't make sense on its own and will confuse the Wikipedia readers? As far as claim of another "secret white paper" by Jaijee is concerned, that is a plain conspiracy theory, nothing else.
 * There is a separate"Casualties" section, where numbers by Marwah can be added with full context. CrashLandingNew (talk) 13:16, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jerome Frank Disciple yes, given that the percentage Marwah gives (35%) is so close to the percentage of what the new source attributes to the official white paper (33%) and that according to Jaijee he refers to a white paper, I now believe that Marwah was probably using the numbers of the original white paper. @CrashLandingNew I agree completely that Jaijee's interpretation of Marwah's numbers is highly problematic because he introduces the number of 16,000 troops without any evidence besides Marwah calling it a "division-level operation". That's why I said we should not try to use the percentage to come up with absolute numbers. And Jaijee's speculation about a second white paper is based entirely on his assumption that Marwah's statement contradicts the official white paper -- an assumption that now looks questionable at best. The fact that it now looks like Marwah may merely have summarised the original government figure that seems to be clearly wrong is the reason why I don't think we should use Marwah's number in the infobox.
 * But that still leaves us with the issue that currently we have only government figures for casualties on either side in the infobox while those figures are highly disputed. That's why I think we should simply add that independent sources believe the actual casualty numbers on both sides to be higher than the official numbers and leave any details to the text. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sorry, I know I said we should use percentages to come up with absolute numbers because we had an unknown-sized "whole", but apparently the real reason was because I'm just bad at math. I'd amend my above comment to second what @Random person no 362478479 said above.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)'
 * Hi there, I took a cursory look at the discussion, I'm planning to read into it later, but from what I've noticed is that this discussion seems to take CanadianSingh1469's assertion that Jaijee's book is a reliable source at face value and preponderantly base their views off that assumption. From what I've gathered about Jaijee is that he is a civil rights activist, was a marketing executive for most of his life, was an MLA for an unspecified amount of time, and President of the Indian Minority and Dalit Front (an organization that appears to yield zero results on the internet). None of these things makes him a credible source, particularly for an article of such a contentious nature. CanadianSingh1469 asserts that his MLA experience gives validity to his inclusion, but I fail to see how; anyone can become an MLA or an MP, it doesn't necessarily speak to their competence or expertise in various facets of government affairs (there are many actors and celeberties in India that become MLAs or MPs and I'm fairly sure we would never use articles, books, or passages that they've authored into any Wikipedia page). I believe CanadianSingh1469 must take his case to RSN in order to determine whether Jaijee can be used in this article. Further, CanadianSingh1469 is ostensibly using a Google Books snippet of Marwah's book to substantiate his claim of 35% of the army suffering casualties during the operation, I've searched all throughout the internet and could not access Marwah's book, how can we even be sure that the passage is Marwah's own commentary, it's possible that he may be quoting someone or there may be information further in the book which rebuts the claim or presents various other casualty figures. S8 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to use Jaijee's book and as far as his interpretation of Marwah goes we should not use it. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really concerned about Jaijee give note above discussion (since we decided that, to the extent Jaijee added to Marwah's claim, that addition wouldn't be included), but I do think you're underselling the case for his reliability a bit. As I understand, he's a former politician now-author/civil-rights advocate. His 2019 book was covered by reliable sources and reviewed in at least one academic journal. I also have to say that I didn't get the impression that CanadianSingh1469 is using a Google Books excerpt—I got the impression he was providing that excerpt for us. Fortunately, @User:CanadianSingh1469, it's easy to resolve this. Do you have a copy of the book or are you just using the Google books excerpt? From my perspective, if CS1469 says the former, then, per WP:AGF, his account of the book controls unless we have evidence suggesting it's wrong. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how see how being a politician particularly in a country like India warrants inclusion, we're also unsure how long his tenure lasted and it doesn't appear that he held any relevant cabinet positions. From my experience in Wikipedia, a person's educational background (they should have extensive educational or other pertinent training) as well as the prominence of the publisher plays a great role in determining whether a source is reliable or not. From what I've gathered, Jaijee's source may not be appropriate for an article of this nature and RSN would be a great avenue to further ascertain it's validity. My assertion that CS1469 was using a Google Books excerpt is not based off assuming good faith or bad faith, but mere intuition, as the only cost affordable way to access Marwah's book on the internet is through intermittent and discontinuous passages in Google Books as well as CS1469's prelusion of any preceding or succeeding sentences beyond what is on the Google Books snippet + . I'd like to reiterate that I'm not casting aspersions but it is my view that it would be inappropriate to edit this article based off a small Google Books snippet until we further ascertain the context of the passage. S8 (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you're very much overstating the credentials WP:RS generally requires. I'm also a little wary of your comment "particularly in a country like India".
 * Either way, @CanadianSingh1469 can clear this up by just letting us know if he was using a physical book or a google books excerpt. (The book is actually not that far from me at a library, but I doubt I'll be able to head out and get it anytime soon.) If he was using the Google books excerpt, then we can have a discussion about whether we can reliably say the contents of that book (in light of the excerpt and Jaijee).--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: It appears Jaijee had a book published by SAGE, which is a preeminent publisher, although I do still maintain some concerns over Jaijee's lack of experience in academia and would consider him a marginally reliable source. I wouldn't oppose his inclusion but I do think other authors, for example Paul Joseph, who is a professor of sociology, should be afforded more weight. S8 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "particularly in a country like India"???? That does not help when considering WP:RS. Going by your history of being blocked for edit warring and Sockpuppetry, you aren't suppose to be involved in "India" topic discussion. Can't trust your opinion. Finmas (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was using a Google books excerpt. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Finmas, firstly I truly apologize if you found that comment offensive, I'm a bit rusty on properly articulating my thoughts as it's been almost a year since I've participated in a talk page discussion. My point was that many politicians in India do have a history of being accused or charged with certain things (I believe it's almost one half of Indian MLAs or MPs). I wasn't insinuating that Jaijee is corrupt or anything or that Indian politicians are to be automatically distrusted, my point was that just by virtue of being a politician doesn't make you a credible source. I've also somewhat reneged my previous statement on Jaijee and would not be opposed to his inclusion given his ties with preeminent publishers like SAGE although I do still maintain some concerns over his lack of experience in academia. Secondly, I was unblocked in January, it is now May, and I do feel sufficient time has passed for me to dip my toes in various Indian related articles. I do acknowledge that it was in poor taste and was written in haste. Offering a Apology. S8 (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This source by Francis Pike, who studied history at Cambridge University and is a journalist and specialist in Asian political strategy also asserts that only 1,000 Indians soldiers were involved in direct combat, as opposed to Jaijee's insinuation of 16,000. This further augments Random's argument that Jaijee possibly misrepresented Marwah. As does  and .  S8 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Again 1,000 being involved is accepting the white papers (which is obviously government lies) I provided some quotes which I will share again. Mark Tully writes: “…Brar asked his superiors for permission to use troops from another Division, the 15th. The infantry from his own division was fully deployed.” Obviously showing that at least more than 1,000 troops were involved.
 * Another quote is, “Mary Anne Weaver a British correspondent in her report to Sunday Times, London June 17, 1984, observed: "not since independence has the Army been used in such numbers - about 15,000 troops took part in the assault."” CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * “Approximate seven divisions of army were deployed Punjab.“ CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all that is original research by you. You are using multiple sources to come up with your own conclusion, secondly, just being deployed doesn't necessarily mean that the troops participated in the military operation as a lot of troops were just deployed to do policing job, to guard Amritsar and maintain law and order. CrashLandingNew (talk) 06:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not coming up with a conclusion. I am just showing sources that state a higher number. What are you getting at? I think someone saying 15,000 troops took part in the assault shows clearly they were part of the attack and even if they were just deployed they would still be part of the operation.
 * The 15th division was the one that was deployed for guarding while the 9th launched the attack. As Mark Tully says the 9th division was forced to call on a few of the battalions of the 15th division to join them in the assault. Off the top of my head the 9th Garhwal was one of them. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just read what you wrote, you "think" that being part of the assault actually means being part of the attack inside the temple, it is your confirmation bias. No reliable source says that so many troops actually participated in the military operation. Nobody is saying that 15-16,000 soldiers actually entered in the temple premises to attack. None of these sources that you are relying upon actually contradicts what the white paper by government states. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, you are relying upon multiple sources to suggest that Jaijee was right. When it has been established that Jaijee's number of 16,000 troops was wrong whereas 35% number by Marwah already stands mentioned via white paper figures mentioned in the infobox. Your primary source was Marwah's 35% figure, which he had based on government's white paper. The base for that 35% has been established. You are trying to use Jaijee's interpretation of Marwah's number and now mixing it with the opinion of some other journalists. That is original research. CrashLandingNew (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * When was it established his number was wrong? Jaijee’s number of 16,000 has nothing against it other than the white papers which provide a small number. Jaijee never got 16,000 from Marwah. Please read the source before jumping to conclusions. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also even if they were deployed they are still part of the Operation. If the 16,000 consists of both deployed and attacking it should still be included because both were part of the Operation with different duties. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jerome Frank Disciple@Random person no 362478479@Suthasianhistorian8@Finmas Thoughts? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @CrashLandingNew Why don’t we just add independent estimate beside the 16,000 since that is accurate? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did 16,000 come from? You have made Jaijee the final authority over every statistic regarding the operation it seems. Read the source, he is only ESTIMATING the number of troops in a division. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you adding wrong number for total numbers of troops involved in the operation? Jaijee is not a reliable source for number of troops deployed or participated. Also, he has only ESTIMATED the number of troops there are in a division. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * He’s not a reliable source since he wasn’t part of it? What kind of logic is that. By that we would have to throw away 90% of the article and only use the book of the man who lead the Operation General Brar. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So you would add any number by any Tom Dick and Harry? Also, he is only ESTIMATING not stating. Should we write 16,000 according to Jaijee in infobox? CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want we can write 16,000 estimate by Jaijee in the infobox. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you’re ok with it then I will add it CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Who is Jaijee and since when has he become the final word on this military operation? He had nothing to do with. Also, read the citation again, he is NOT stating the number of troops involved, he is only ESTIMATING the number of troops in a division. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop adding numbers without building a consensus first. CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * On a side note, Ved Marwah writes in his book "According to the government's White Paper, 4712 persons were killed and 10,000 arrested in the operation." However, the publicly available white paper states that 4,712 people (civilians/terrorists) were apprehended, not killed. Please see PAGE 169. There seems to be conflicting information in secondary sources as well with some that seem to reiterate Marwah's claim  and  and, citing the Government of India and also classifying the 4,712 killed figure as purely civilian/terrorist causalities and separate from the official figure of 83 killed and 262 wounded within the army. These secondary sources claims however that 4,712 people were apprehended, not killed  and  and  which appears to be consistent with what the publicly available White Paper actually says. (The last source states that 1,592 people were detained (in the Golden Temple complex, as the White Paper asserts), whereas Marwah seems to be implying that the detained figure actually counts as killed. I'm not smart enough to fully understand the implications of this so asking  to have a look. S8 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that's covered below :). Sorry I sabotaged the convo in a section break.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it looks like Marwah somehow mixed up the number for apprehensions with casualty numbers. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Source for 16,000 troops?
What is the source for 16,000 troops being deployed? CrashLandingNew (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Jaijee page 96. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Jaijee is not a reliable source regarding how many troops were deployed, secondly, he is NOT STATING that 16,000 troops were deployed, he is only ESTIMATING how many troops are there in a division. CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I know he is estimating. Still means his number should be included since independent estimates are included for other parts. You keep saying Jaijee isn’t a reliable source, but provide no evidence other than he wasn’t part of the operation. Basically all the authors of the sources weren’t part of the operation. Do you want us to reject independent casualty numbers since they are from people who weren’t part of the operation. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense at all. In the name of "independent sources" you would add anything? Jaijee is not even estimating the number of troops in the operation, he is only estimating how many troops are there in a division normally. CrashLandingNew (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jaijee's number of 16,000 troops is a complete fantasy. He simply took Marwah's characterisation of the operation as a "division-level operation" and added the (average) number of troops in a division. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's how this whole thing started. CS1469 added 5,600 casualties for army using Jaijee's interpretation of Marwah's words. CrashLandingNew (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jerome Frank Disciple Should we include the 16,000 number? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's slow down a bit on that portion of the discussion. As I detailed below, I (and maybe multiples of us?) missed something big about Jaijee's book. Specifically, I didn't realize until now that his argument for a secret white paper was the total number of people killed, not the 35% number.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I need my answers! :) jk CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If only I were as fast as you all! As you might be able to tell, I'm quite slow.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No. You’re pretty fast. You take your time and write a long good paragraph while I just write whatever is in my head. I basically ramble. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

—Hello! I just wanted to give you a heads up that I reverted your addition of 16,000 troops given the above discussion, which I concede is a lot to wade through—in short, that number is currently under dispute. I noticed you said "sourced" as your edit summary—I assume your source is Jaijee's book?--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Source is Jaijee’s book, correct and I just noticed all this discussion so apologize. From what I have read so far, you are doing a commendable job. Hope everyone reaches a common resolution. Ralx888 (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks—we'll get there; I hope. And feel free to chime in with any thoughts you have!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Break
I think we're maybe losing our grip on the discussion so far, so I thought I'd recap and try to do some clean up. I admit I didn't fully dive into the materials until just now.
 * 1) In a Google Book excerpts of Uncivil Wars, Ved Marwah, writing of Operation Blue Star, suggested that there were "35 per cent casualties in a division-level operation." He also says (and this hasn't been mentioned so far, but it's important), "According, to the government's White Paper, 4712 persons were killed and 10,000 were arrested in the operation." (page 175).
 * 2) In another book, The Politics of Genocide, Inderjit  Singh  Jaijee calls Ved Marwah's "35%" figure an "improve[ment]" on  Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's estimate that 700 soldiers had died; Jaijee notes in a parenthetical that "[a] division is comprised of 16,000 troops". Then, commenting on the 4,712 figure, he notes Marwah's explicit reliance on the government white paper. But he says those numbers didn't match the publicly available white paper, which reported "493 civilians  plus  83  security  personnel  killed". As such, he speculated that there might exist a secret government white paper.
 * 3) In a journal article, Apurba Kundu described the white paper as stating that Operation Blue Star had "a very high one-third casualty rate of 4 officers and 79 men killed, 12 officers and 237 men wounded ... and that the militants suffered 493 dead ... and 86 injured".

When I first read the description of these sources and the RFC question, I thought the dispute concerned the 35% number—that we essentially had a denominator problem—the question was how many troops participated in the fight. (I apologize for that confusion, especially to User:Random person no 362478479, who must have been really baffled by the nonsensical questions I posed to him/her specifically.) But now, I think that the 35% number is—more or less— accepted across the board as an estimate of the casualties on the government-forces side.

Instead, it seems to me that the total number killed is what prompted Jaijee to suggest a secret white paper. It's not clear whether "4,712 killed" is a total number or a just-civilian number. But, according to Jaijee, the government white paper only estimated 576 civilians killed. Even if the 4712 number is "total" killed, it wouldn't match the public government white paper, which, combining the numbers in it as reported by Kundu and Jaijee, would say 83 government forces killed, 493 militants killed, and 576 civilians killed ... that would total 1152.

But, the article's template already says that upwards of 5000 civilians have ben killed—more than Marwah estimates, so, I'm a little confused as to what we're debating at this point. '''It seems like the question has shifted from "Should we include the 35% figure?" to "Should we discuss the deployment number?".''' Is that right? Or, more broadly,, , is there anything I've stated in this subsection that you disagree with? (I understand that you've all pointed to other sources, but let's hold off on discussing those for the moment; once we get these facts down, we'll simultaneously narrow the inquiry and discuss the additional sources)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @Jerome Frank Disciple Your original impression was correct. The dispute was about the 35% number. In particular the original disagreement centred around two questions:
 * Are Marwah and Jaijee's books reliable sources for casualty numbers?
 * When Marwah wrote of "35 per cent casualties" what was the basis: government troops directly involved in hostilities, government troops deployed, government troops and militants, etc.?
 * While I assume that the answer to the second question is government troops directly involved in hostilities, it looks more and more like Marwah is not a reliable source for casualties and that he actually did not contradict government figures, but used the original government figures. Further it seems to me that Jaijee's interpretation of Marwah is highly problematic. I don't have access to Marwah's book. But here is the relevant text from Jaijee's book:
 * In his book Uncivil Wars, Ved Marwah improves on the late prime minister's figure when he writes: "but 35 per cent casualties in a division-level operation cannot be called a well-planned and well-executed operation." (A division is comprised of 16,000 troops).
 * Interestingly, Ved Marwah cites the government's White Paper as the source of his figures - "4712 persons were killed and 10,000 arrested during this operation." Are you puzzled? Just a few lines back you read a figure of "493 civilians plus 83 security personnel killed" - also citing the government's White Paper. The White Paper I have quoted from is available in libraries and anyone can go and see the figures for himself. And yet Ved Marwah is not a man to simply make up figures out of his head. Are there two White Papers ... one for the general public and one for privileged circulation?
 * - Inderjit Singh Jaijee: Politics of Genocide: Punjab, 1984–1998, 96-97
 * Some observations:
 * Jaijee's assumption that there is a second White Paper depends on two assumptions, i.e. Marwah cites a White Paper, and Marwah's account differs from the official White Paper.
 * I assume that Marwah actually says that he cites the White Paper, but without access to his book I can't be sure.
 * According to the official White Paper army casualties (in the Golden Temple area) were 83 dead and 249 injured. I skimmed the White Paper, but found no information about the number of troops involved. According to Kundu "approximately one thousand army personnel" were involved. If we take those numbers together we arrive at a casualty rate of 33.2%. Assuming Marwah's 35% and 83 dead and 249 injured we would arrive at 949 troops. Taken together this strongly suggests that Marwah was actually citing the official White Paper.
 * Jaijee quotes Marwah as saying "4712 persons were killed and 10,000 arrested". I did not find this information in the White Paper. But, according to the White Paper 4712 is the total number of "Civilian/Terrorists Apprehensions". That suggests that either Marwah misquoted the official White Paper or Jaijee misquoted Marwah.
 * Jaijee's number of 16,000 troops simply refers to the (average) number of troops in a division. It seems that he interprets Marwah's characterisation of the operation as "a division-level operation" to mean that exactly one division was involved.
 * Based on this I believe that Marwah was most likely taking his information from the official White Paper. Given that we know that the official White Paper was not accurate, we have to assume the same for Marwah's number of 35%. That the official White Paper was not the last word on things is no surprise -- when it was written the army was still recovering guns from the operation. Further Jaijee makes the extremely questionable assumption that Marwah's characterisation of the operation as "division-level" means that there were 16,000 troops involved. Based on this he conjectures that Marwah cited a second, unpublished White Paper.
 * For these reasons I think that we should not use Marwah as a source for information about casualties and we should not use Jaijee's interpretation of Marwah. That does not mean we can't use either of them for other information unless there is more evidence of unreliability. Of course if someone can get hold of a complete version of Marwah's book and finds that it somehow resolves these issues we can reevalute this.
 * That leaves open the more general question: should we include information other than the official government numbers (and if so what information)?
 * And by now there is the second question: how many troops were actively engaged in the fighting? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can be relatively sure on the Marwah front! I search the figure—4712—in his book, and he says very explicitly in text, "According, to the government's White Paper, 4712 persons were killed and 10,000 were arrested in the operation." (page 175). So I suppose it means that Marwah may have misquoted ... or, as Jaijee said, he had access to another white paper ... I have to admit, our analysis of that—though I think methodologically solid—strikes me as potentially going into OR territory. That is, we have one reliable source saying that Marwah maybe have relied on a secret white paper, and we're concluding "no no, Marwah probably just accidentally used this other figure from the white paper."
 * I think agree that we shouldn't use the 16,000 number. That always struck me as a generic statement and not a specific description.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jaijee's idea that there is a second White Paper is pure speculation. So no matter how reliable we think he is, we cannot take that as reliable information.
 * Of course my believe that Marwah cited the official White Paper is based entirely on OR. But I don't argue that we should say so, only that it is strong reason to be very careful when it comes to Marwah's number unless someone gets hold of the entire book and can counter these concerns. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well but we could include Jaijee's speculation in the article. That said ... I don't think we should. I'm not sure getting Marwah's book would help—we have the line, and it seems pretty explicit. Unless he said "I got it on this page of the white paper" or "and it definitely wasn't the number of apprehensions, just to be clear" ... then we're out of luck--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess that he doesn't give a proper citation. If he did Jaijee probably wouldn't have had to speculate. But if he gives information about the number of troops involved that might help us to determine whether his account is compatible with the official White Paper or not. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer the second question we will never truly know. Many troops were deployed to Punjab with Operation Blue Star. 80,000 if I recall correctly. How many were at Amritsar and attacked the temple is unclear. What we know is the 15th division was stationed at Amritsar and provided some battalions to aid General Brar’s 9th division in the attack. I assume the entire 9th division was involved in the attack considering reserve battalions of the 15th division were used. (26 Mardas and 9 Garhwal Rifles) CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'll ever know the answer to either question. All we can do is quote the available sources. And we should make sure not to interpret them. I.e. when a source says "x troops were involved in the attack/assault/operation" we should say exactly that and not speculate whether that means that they were directly involved in fighting or whether some of them were securing the area or standing by, or whatever. The same goes for whether troops were deployed, involved, etc. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ^ Seconded.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And these quotes should be in the casualties section of the page for the full context rather than infobox section, where only specific numbers shall be added. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as numbers for involved troops go, I agree. But for casualties I find it problematic to mention disputed numbers without saying they are disputed. We don't need to add alternative numbers or any details, but in my opinion we should add to the infobox that the numbers are disputed. Otherwise we create the impression that the government numbers are more reliable than they actually are. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Right! This can help readers understand that there are different numbers reported. I was thinking earlier to have different numbers added and in brackets have a mention that numbers are disputed but just by adding “numbers are disputed” in the info box makes sense too. Ralx888 (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * A similar discussion with regards to casualties during Insurgency in Punjab, India is active on the talk page of the page. The source being contested is the same Jaijee's book. Do join in. CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Could not have said it better myself. Ralx888 (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Operation Blue Star
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Operation Blue Star's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Jayanta484": From Anandpur Sahib Resolution:  From Khalistan movement:  From Sikhs:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Member Please fix this — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 08:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing this out, I’ll get it fixed hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  14:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)