Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Sikh Holocaust 1984


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. The AFD was closed by who deleted the article at 06:21UTC, September 9, 2009. I am just adding the closing templates and removing subsequent comments. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Sikh Holocaust 1984

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A blatant and clear-cut case of POV pushing. The term "Third Sikh Holocaust" gets only 1,600 hits on Google (the first few of which are YouTube videos) and absolutely zero hits on Google Scholar. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, with no previous good version to which to revert, this is hopelessly in violation of WP:NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 01:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Initially I considered whether an article rename would suffice, but reading through the article, it is clear that it is a irremediable piece of soapboxing. Other articles created by the same user
 * First Sikh Holocaust
 * Second Sikh Holocaust, and
 * Harbhajan Singh Yogi
 * also need to be scrutinized to see if there is anything worth retaining. (read for example footnote 52 in Harbhajan Singh Yogi) Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment He has also created Wadda Ghalughara and Chhotaa Ghallooghaaraa which roughly translate as "Big holocaust/massacre" "Small holocaust/massacre".  Gizza Discuss  &#169;  08:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed and examined the other two articles, and Google turned up some scholarship on the first two "Sikh holocausts" (which are only called such by partisan sources). A merge into a new article such as Sikh persecution in the 18th century or something along those lines will likely be the end result. We're attempting to rectify the neutrality and title issues separately from this article since those two have the possibility of becoming viable articles whereas this one is irredeemable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear case of POV pushing with no reliable source verifiability. Not one hit on gbooks or gscholar (unlikely given the scope of religious studies and ethnic studies at major universities). The only gnews link is a partisan source. Also part of this set of articles was this AfD that resulted in a delete, but one that had similar amount of reference padding to Harbhajan Singh Yogi and had overlapping editors. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 02:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hopelessly PoV, (as probably are most articles with the title holocaust). Though there does need to be an NPOV article on the many allegations of unprovoked killings of Sikhs during this period. Imc (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Entirely an essay/opinion piece in tone and style. Priyanath talk 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Delete. If this is already covered elsewhere, then I see no reason to keep this article. I would agree that this article is indeed "hopelessly PoV" when it would require a major rewrite to have a more neutral tone and when it seems likely that people would be offended by the idea of a rewrite.  NPOV can be done-- the articles on The Holocaust and the Final Solution have done rather well in keeping an encyclopedic tone on an emotionally-charged subject -- but those are the collective work of many editors. Mandsford (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note The existence of other articles is not really relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:OTHERCRAPTeamQuaternion (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This article is highly POV. The matter is already covered in more neutral articles such as 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency. utcursch | talk 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I forgot I was reading an encyclopedia whilst reading this. It seemed more like Sikh propaganda. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions.  --  Cyber  cobra  (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  --  Cyber  cobra  (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  --  Cyber  cobra  (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - clearly POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I am picking this article as my keeper of the day. I noticed that it has plenty of sources, well over 100, and I am not exactly sure what makes it so point of view.  It may well have a few lines within it that are point of view, but there is no reason that these problems could not in theory be fixed.  Point of view problems are considered a rather poor reason for deleting an article. Articles_for_deletionThe topic of the article is certainly notable and verifiable.  I am not Sikh or Indian, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here as far as the political agenda.  Deletion seems to be a very coercive way of dealing with content and an author, when discussion and rewriting seem to be more of the answer, I am going to check the discussion page, to see if these issues have even been discussed.  Seems like this should have been done before the article was nominated.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As Utcursch mentions, there are already NPOV articles on exactly the same topic. Sentences like freedom-loving Sikhs offered up a disproportionate sacrifice to liberate their country from the shackles of colonial rule. and inspiring sacrifices of the Sikhs make me wonder whether TeamQuaternion (above) actually read the page. You don't need to even be familiar with Wiki's policies to realise that the tone and agenda pushed by these POV forks have no place here.  Gizza Discuss  &#169;  08:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I already fixed the text you are talking about in one spot, if it is stated elsewhere I can fix that one as well. Even more glaring is that the Sikh figures of casualties (40,000 to 60,000) are stated as being fact, now that has been changed to Sikh sources claim...  Body counts offered by the Indian government are now the only places were there are point of view problems, because last time I checked these body count statistics were listed as undisputed facts. BTW just about every problem in the article can be fixed by simply inserting Sikh's claim into the mix, because when this is done, the whole article becomes completely verifiable because I have looked into it, and just about everything in the article is consistently given in Sikh accounts. It is a very accurate reflection of the Sikh point of view, its problem being that it states these points of view as indisputable facts.  Some of the wording can be changed to a more neutral tone as well, but if point of fact the Sikhs did have a disperportionate casualty rate in that conflict so the article in that respect is factually correct. Thanks for pointing out that problem, but the thing is that I am not really sure we have made a good faith effort to discuss with the author and try and fix all the point of view problems with the article.  For this reason alone the nomination should fail as it is in clear violation of WP:BEFORETeamQuaternion (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep or userfy very, very well sourced. It can be reworked and rewritten into a decent article. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename and rewrite -- This is a substantial and well-sourced article, but with a POV title and perhaps some POV content . The primary subject is an internal conflict between the Sikh community and the Indian government.  It is clearly written from a Sikh POV, but I see no evidence of a holocaust in the sense applied to the Jewish holocasut in WWII.  The first pertion deals with pre-1984 Sikh grievances: I am not clear as to their relevance.  The long paragraphs on the principal participants do not belong: the WP method of dealing with the need for these is to provide a short paragraph with a "main" template linking to the bio-article on the person.  I do not know whether there is another articles on the subject to merge this with.  If there is not, it should be given a series of tags, indicating the problems with it.  It is a great pity when a substantial article such as this is deleted when what it needs is pruning, converting to NPOV, and generally sorting out.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I note that First Sikh Holocaust and Second Sikh Holocaust are now redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename, rewrite and merge with 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency: "Third Sikh Holocaust" may be an OR. Other OR too: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is vaguely analogous to the attack in Amritsar. Heavy one-sided POV. Inappropriate tone, like personal POV essay:"The situation has changed some since the terrible days of Indira Gandhi. A Sikh is now Prime Minister of India and Sikh culture and commentary is readily available worldwide on the internet. But Punjab remains without a capital, many farmers without adequate water, and India remains a country of great hope, great challenges and great illusions.As the motto of the Indian republic says, Satyameva Jayate – “Truth Alone Shall Triumph”." BUT BENEATH THE POV, LAY BURIED SOME WELL-REFERENCED FACTS. Khushwant Singh for eg. is a very notable author. " Oxford University Press", University of Pennsylvania Press are noatble publishers. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment (I already voted to keep), some people in this discussion may have a big advantage over me, because before I looked at this ADF proposal I did not know anything about this history. Ghallooghaaraa is the Sikh word for Holocaust, or so the article claims.  This should  be verified by checking with a Sikh English dictionary, but the factual nature of the article is not really being challenged. The author has verified this with a citation to a Sikh English dictionary, giving the exact page number where it is stated that Ghallooghaaraa is literally translated as holocaust.  It would seem to me that the Sikh name for the event is an appropriate title, for an in depth coverage of these events from a Sikh point of view. The article documents with well over 160 sources and growing the verifiable and notable point of view of the Sikh community on the history of these events.  There is really nothing wrong with an in depth article on a point of view, especially a notable one, as long as it says that it is from the Sikh point of view.  As I see it, if the so called neutral articles mentioned don't provide some degree of coverage to the Sikh point of view, and link to this article, then the real problem is with the neutrality of these articles and not with this article on the Sikh point of view.  A problem with merging the entire article with 160 citations into a main article with only 26 citations, including all the facts documented in the sources would be that then the main neutral article would become out of balance containing many more cited sources that support the Sikh point of view.TeamQuaternion (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe you will have to read through all of the 160 citations first, and ensure that they are not being quoted or referred to selectively or out of context. Best of luck. Imc (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete while i sympathize with anyone who would like to rescue poorly written articles, and i have attempted to rescue some myself, i really cannot imagine this article passing deletion review with a "hey, why not just clean up". i believe in eventualism, but i also think articles need to stand as they are, maybe poorly sourced, maybe incomplete, but overall encyclopedic. this is so poorly written and pov, it needs to go. whoever wants to rescue it, please, just copy it to your sandbox and rewrite, and then recreate under a different name. i admit the references look good, but that may be all thats salvageable. the world can wait for this to be rewritten.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * NoteAs per Articles_for_deletion a point of view problem is an extremely poor reason to place an ADF tag on an article and a much better approach is to improve the article. I have fixed a few of the more glaring style errors in the article and plan of fixing a few more, so since many of the WP:NPOV problems have been fixed, maybe the key issue is that this article is very verifiable as per guidline WP:V with 160 citations and also very notable as per WP:N, seems like nobody has disputed these facts, and since this is not a vote this ADF should be rejected.TeamQuaternion(talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally, I would agree with you. Even an article as slanted as this one can usually be redeemed with enough elbow grease. But that is not the case here. The events this article describes are already covered in our articles about the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and the Punjab insurgency, thus rendering a rewrite unnecessarily redundant. Most importantly, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is a shock term intended to conjure images of Nazi concentration camps and fascist crackdowns. When we use the word "Holocaust" to name the events in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, or when we use the term "genocide" to name the events in Rwanda in 1993-1994, we do so not as a rallying cry against racism or crimes against humanity but because that's what they are called by neutral and unbiased scholars and historians. Even neo-Nazis call the Holocaust "the Holocaust". As near as I can tell, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is not used by any scholar, not even in one of the 130+ citations provided by the article's author. The only usages other than this article where I have found the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" come from Sikh websites railing against the crimes this article describes. That is hardly a neutral basis for such a complex topic. As such, we should move the salvageable content into the three articles I linked earlier and delete the remaining POV-filled detritus. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note OK just a guess here, but my guess is that some of my older Jewish relatives would find this stuff extremely offensive, and think it was trivializing the holocaust. Also I am sure that Hindu people are not happy about being compared to Nazis?  By the same token check out this link"


 * http://sikhtoons.com/HailIndia.html


 * My point being that an article on the Sikh point of view about the events of 1984 should not be stated as fact, but it should exist, because the fact that elements within the Sikh community use rhetoric like this is a verifiable fact. What is debated in an ADF is the topic of an article.  I agree that it should be mentioned that this is an emotionally charged term used by only members on one side of the account.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See also WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE. The only reference for the term "Third Holocaust" (ref 1) is a dictionary that says Ghalooghara translates to Holocaust or a few other words. The article clearly fails reliable source verifiability for its core. While there are some RS refs included, they aren't germane to the title, rather they contribute to a synthesis, putting forward this fringe theory. That Wikipedia is not a soapbox is another policy vio. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV fork of 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also lacks RS. SBC-YPR (talk) 09:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment-point of view fork issue User wikipedia/WikiDragon Deleting an article based on it having a point of view problems is one of the worst arguments for deletion I can think of. Probably the very worst example of an WP:OTHERCRAP argument is to try and justify deleting an article based on a claim that it is a point of view fork.  This topic is notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V it has over 160 references some of them from very reputable and non-partisan sources.  That is not really nice of you to call the Sikhs that don't agree with Indian main stream media a fringe group, but even if they are, they are certainly a notable fringe group.  Basically a point of view fork argument is that since some allegedly non-bias other article does not provide sufficient coverage of a subject, then an in depth coverage of the same topic needs to be deleted.  Nonsense, lets stick to the issue and forget about WP:OTHERCRAP, better yet, since you have now awakened a sleeping dragon, I am headed right over to the article you claim is so unbias, and add in all the references that people suggest should be merged into that article, and place a link to the main article on the point of view expressed by some Sikhs.  The sad thing is that this will mean that over 160 references are going to probably start to toggle in and out of that article.  At least that will thwart your plan to get this content out of wikipedia edit history, unless people next advocating that article as well. Anyway, everybody please try and calm down and have a nice day.  I believe that many of you are men of good faith who just disagree with the point of view of some of the Sikhs, but I don't think it is reasonable to exclude it.  The other good news, is that all of the named point of view problems with the article have now been fixed.  Making a sweeping claim about an article having a point of view fork problem is a fallacy under WP:JUSTAPOLICY in this case because it really does not apply when two articles are bias, and also fails by WP:ONLYESSAY.  Also I think in an argument we need to say if we are Sikh Hindu or other.  I have been clicking and visiting a lot of user pages, and there are many Hindus or at least Indian nationals.  Me I am mostly Irish and German with some Jewish relatives as well.  I have nothing personally against either Hindus or Sikhs and did not know anything about this issue until I clicked into it because I monitor articles for deletion.TeamQuaternion (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You would be better off understanding Wikipedia policies including those on reliable sources before you go on arguing about the 160 references. The fact that the only reliable sources in those 160 don't support the concept of a holocaust is the main point here. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 03:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * commentUser:SpacemanSpiff I notice you are a native Hindi speaker, nothing wrong with that, but people should name their partisanship in these types of heated discussions. The notable fact is what the Sikhs are claiming something.  You make a great point, that their point of view is disputed.  I agree that this fact should be included in the article.  However the fact that they are making these claims is a little harder to dispute, my own research verifies that they are making these claimsWP:IKNOWIT/WP:JUSTAand that stating something I know to be a fact is not relevant and not really appropriate here, because they are a result of my recent inquiry into the subject. My lack of understanding of guides is not really relevant per WP:ADHOM, but thank you for the advice.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, rescope to discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" in the apparently unlikely event that there is sufficient material - there seems no need for the content of this article to focus on the events of 1984, since we have extensive (and hopefully rather better) coverage of that elsewhere. Discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" itself also belongs in those other articles. However, if that discussion of the term becomes too extensive, then this article location would be (possibly minus the "1984") the wisest choice for a sub-article on the term to be branched out. The current situations appears to me to be an unacceptable POV-fork. TheGrappler (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a POV version of another well written and more neutral article:[1984 anti-Sikh riots]. --Deepak D'Souza 03:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.