Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-17/Operation Blue Star

Where is the dispute?
Talk:Operation Blue Star

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:Profitoftruth85
 * User:Sodabottle
 * User:Sikh-history
 * User:Arjun024
 * User:Wikireader41

What is the dispute?
The dispute is about the inclusion of Category:Massacres in places of worship to the article.

What would you like to change about this?
We are talking past each other and the discussion has gone off track.

How do you think we can help?
The discussion has gone offtrack and strayed into accusations of bias, canvassing, and other things. I think a mediator could help us focus exclusively on the merits of including Category:Massacres in places of worship to the page.

Mediator notes
I'd be interested in taking up this case, if all parties accept. -- Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Accept--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept--Sodabottle (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept-- Arjun  codename024 13:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept--Sikh- History 10:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Initial statement
Since you're all fairly experienced user, I think you already know what I'm about to tell; however, let me be bureaucratic. I'm not here to decide anything, I'm just here to try and help you discuss, so that, hopefully, you'll reach consensus and solve this issue. That's why I'd like to ask you to please keep your answers short and to the point, striving to avoid personal attacks and ad hominem. That way, we'll be able to talk to each other and not at each other. First of all, have you already tried to reach a compromise? Do you think there's room for one and, if so, what kind of compromise would you offer? Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. I'm assuming that, since has started commenting in the discussion section, they accept me as mediator and, so, you all agree. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!)

Discussion

 * I think essentially there has been a loss of good faith. The entire Golden Temple/Blue Star debate is quite a sensitive subject. There appears to be a train of thought that because the Sikhs view this as a massacre (with a citation), it should not be included. Thanks --Sikh- History 16:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * the way it is worded it gives the impression that ALL Sikhs view this as a massacre. clearly some Sikhs do view this as a massacre but generally that is a minority view.  how many statements can we make about ALL members of a religion viewing a particular incident in a certain way.  The operation was commanded by a Sikh, Kuldip Singh Brar and the President of India at the time Zail Singh was a Sikh and they have never called this a massacre.  Kanwar Pal Singh Gill another Sikh subsequently decisively wiped out militancy in Panjab never called this a massacre.  this is a classic case of WP:UNDUE weight being given based on a solitary citation to a book written by partisan authors.  Many others have described the incident without mentioning the word massacre.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * All of the people you mention have a vested interest in Operation Bluestar not being considered a massacre, they are hardly a nonpartisan source.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. MOST Sikhs have a vested interest in not considering this a massacre.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood my point. The specific names you mentioned are not a measure of the Sikh community's opinion. I wasn't talking about most Sikhs, just the figures you named. My point is that we should ignore eveybody's interests and just report "Group 1 feels like..." "Group 2 feels like ..." "Group 3 feels like..". That is fundamentally what NPOV is. We shouldn't make a judgment on including something because it would upset someone's feelings.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 21:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And report that Group 1 considers that 'earth is flat' and group 2 considers that 'holocaust never happened' looks like you are intentionally failing to understand what is written at WP:DUE. minority views cannot be given equal prominence as majority views . period.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparing people's viewpoints to holocaust denial and belief in a flat earth is not conducive to discussion and unfairly antagonizes other people in the mediation. There are reliable sources which both consider the operation a massacre and conclude that Sikhs consider it a massacre.     Wikipedia's intellectual honesty should not be compromised to support wikireader41's view of the world.
 * I favour the addition of "some sikhs" view. This incident inflamed the situation and contributed considerably to the insurgency that followed. In that context it becomes essential to mention that "some sikhs" viewed it as a massacre/tragedy etc. Even if it was a minority/fringe view, it had considerable impact on the events that followed. Even in recent times the date of the operation is observed as "gallughara divas" by some in punjab.(attended sometimes by mainstream punjabi politicians). The word "massacre" should not be in the lead, but it should be in the "aftermath"/"impact" sections. --Sodabottle (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything but your conclusion.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sodabottle the India today reference clearly states 'Radical Sikh groups plan to mark the occasion as 'Ghallughara Diwas (genocide day)'. I have no objection to a statement like this included in "aftermath" section.  like I said only a minority of 'Radical Sikhs' use this kind of terminology.  Majority of the Sikhs have moved on and understood how Inter-Services Intelligence exploited the internal politics of Sikhs in the 80s.  The separatist movement is all but dead in the Sikh heartland of Punjab.--Wikireader41 (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikireader41, this is a mediation, not an opportunity for you to start frothing at the mouth about Pakistan. This discussion is about Operation Bluestar and not the militancy as a whole. In any case, Indira Gandhi and the Congress (I) party financially and politically supported Bhindranwale prior to 1984 in an effort to undermine the Akali Dal which had agitated against her when she seized power during the Emergency. I disagree on the inclusion of the qualifier "some" now, it seems too much like a pov push.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to frame this discussion in a different way. There are reliable sources which both consider the operation a massacre and conclude that Sikhs consider it a massacre. Why should your personal views be given more weight than these sources?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is going nowhere. Let's take a different approach. Profitoftruth, if consensus were in your favour (please note that this is only for the sake of the argument), how would you phrase the lead, to include the Sikh's (minority?) point of view that it was a massacre? Please write it as if you were editing the article. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just one point on this. The refernce I added to the lead, I quoted from the text verbatum from a report that was compiled by Hindu's and Sikhs, and appears to be non-Partisan. Thanks--Sikh- History 10:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) Since I just noticed this mediation effort, I'm restating what I said on the operation blue star talk page (with a few changes) here. Clearly, operation bluestar was a traumatic experience for India's sikhs, and there is perceptual difference between how sikhs view the operation and how the rest of India does. Somehow indicating this difference is important (properly sourced, of course) and should be included in the lead, though I'm not sure whether or not massacre is the right term and I don't like the idea of using non-English terms such as ghallughara, especially in the article lead. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can start rewriting the lead but what I'm concerned about is the unwillingness of Wikireader41 to recognize the validity of other viewpoints. I don't think it's fair to simply reject the other person's argument out of hand, and that's why I made the "frothing" comment. I apologize. Let me see if I can find a way to rewrite it.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please don't devote too much time to that: I didn't intend to ask you to produce anything complex; I was hoping you could say something along the lines of I'd change sentence X to Y, including the massacre part, so as to discuss on something concrete and not on general concepts. Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 01:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Change
 * "The assault, which the Sikhs themselves call the Ghallughara..."[10] or massacre"


 * to
 * "The large number of deaths at the Golden Temple was compared to the historic massacre of Sikh men, women, and children during the 1762 Battle of Kup. The events have colloquially become known as the "Ghallughara", or massacre, a term previously only used two other times in Sikh history."


 * well its not that I don't accept the validity of other viewpoints. I just think that most Sikhs do NOT consider this a massacre and this fact is reflected in most RS not mentioning '(All) Sikhs consider this a massacre' viewpoint.,  My position is that this is a minority viewpoint which does not need to be given such prominence in the article. In my mind this would be analogous to believing that 'Bhindranwale was the leader of Sikhs and (all) Sikhs agreed with him'.  Some sources have called Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC)a terrorist organization .  however this is a minority view and it would be equally wrong to put 'SGPC is a Sikh terrorist organization' in the lead of that article even though we have an RS clearly stating that.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your first two sources are not about Operation Bluestar, that is a red herring.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To say something like "Sikhs consider it a XXXX", you don't need all Sikhs to be in agreement, you only need enough Sikhs to be in agreement and for reliable sources to assert that this is what enough Sikhs believe. Personally, I think enough Sikhs believe that operation blue star was less than kosher in execution and we need to find a good sourced word for that. However, the reformulation above is not suitable for the lead. First, the comparison with the 1762 'massacre' is both inappropriate level of detail in the lead (hardly any readers will know what the battle of kup was or what its significance is to sikhs) as well as a bit weasly (if we want to say massacre, we should just say it). Also, the reference to ghallughara is dubious, particularly the translation to massacre, and the use of a non-english word in the lead is not a good idea unless that word is generally known. Finally, a bald statement of the sort 'Sikhs believe it was a massacre' is also incomplete (massacre in what sense?) and grammatically incorrect ('Sikhs believe a large number of innocent pilgrims were massacred during the operation' would be grammatically correct). My impression is that sikhs generally believe that large numbers of pilgrims - men, women and children - since the operation was conducted during a holy period) were killed by the army during the operation. What we need is a reliable source that asserts that either this was indeed the case, or that sikhs believe that this was indeed the case, and then include the specific form of the information or belief in the lead. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind giving the wording a try?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree; if you could try and formulate a new wording, that might help. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 15:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I'll give it a shot later today. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the lead

 * 1) In para 3, specific estimates from independent sources should be included. ''Official reports put the number of deaths among the Indian army at 83 and the number of civilian deaths at 492, though some independent estimates run as high as 8000.
 * 2) Current last para (impact). The military assault led to an uproar amongst Sikhs worldwide and the increased tension following the action led to assaults on members of the Sikh community within India. Some Sikh soldiers in the Indian army mutineed[need citation], many Sikhs resigned from armed and civil administrative office and a few returned awards and honors they had received from the Indian government[11]. Four months after the operation, on 31 October 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by two of her Sikh bodyguards in what is viewed as an act of vengeance[12][assume citation for vengeance is available]. Following her assassination, more than 5000 Sikhs were killed in anti-Sikh riots .  Within the Sikh community itself, Operation Blue Star has taken on considerable historical significance and is often compared to what Sikhs call 'the great massacre', the 1761 slaughter of Sikhs by the Afghan invader Ahmad Shah Abdali. .


 * Accept Nice job, let's see if we've reached consensus on this and then move on to Category:Massacres in places of worship--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept and seems reasonable. Thanks--Sikh- History 10:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Accept - perfect--Sodabottle (talk) 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Massacres in places of worship
Ok, you now appear to have reached a consensus regarding the lead — and I'd like to thank RegentsPark for his great contribution! —; I think it appropriate to move on to the issue of categorisation. As before, to prompt this new discussion I'd like it if someone made an argument for inclusion and then we see where this debate takes us. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 12:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Some sources have called it a massacre and the golden temple is a place of worship.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: IMO, adding the category does not necessarily mean that wikipedia claims that it was definitely a massacre (and the article should make the nuances clear). --RegentsPark (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It has been four days and nobody has expressed their opinion, except Profitoftruth and RegentsPark. To see if the inclusion is still controversial, I'd suggest to follow WP:BRD: someone, being bold, could insert the article in the category and see if he gets reverted; if so, we'll get back here to discuss further. Do you agree? Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 13:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noting that the category has already been inserted. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Now let's see if anyone objects.  Salvio  Let's talk 'bout it! 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)