Talk:Operation Blue Star

Added tags

The article is regulary changed with various points of view. The facts of this incident are clearly and *strongly* disputed, and the prevention of press coverage makes all the sources suspect... the only people who were witnesses were either victims or participants.- Sinneed 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Pettigrew

The text describes Joyce Pettigrew as a "Swedish anthropologist". I was under the impression she was, in fact, Scottish (79.190.69.142 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Scottish - but why does this belong in the article? - Sinneed 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Massacre in a Holy Place

One editor, seems to have an objection to this being refered to as a massacre in a holy place. I have added a citation that claims this to be a massacre. Can we add back the link? Thanks--Sikh-History 12:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See my reply to the same query by User:Sikh-history at may talk page ([1]) Arjun^codename024 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I(profitoftruth85) have copied the reply below:

No dear friend. Sikhs describe Op Bluestar as a massacre means that it's a massacre from a Sikh Point of view. It in no way implies that the assertion is from a Neutral POV. As merriam websters tells me; massacre is "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". This does not apply to this event. The military moved in to clear the Sikh separatists who resisted, ensuing an armed conflict. Categorizing this a massacre is not all correct. Thanks for talking this up here.

Let's be clear that this is not a black and white issue. If we had to list the points of view here, the "Sikh Point of view" would be split up into 'most Sikhs' and 'partisans'. At the time 'most Sikhs' did not support an armed conflict against the government of india while 'partisans' did. A large number of 'most Sikhs' were in the Harmandir Sahib at the time to celebrating Guru Arjan Dev's death and were killed as a result of the attack. I said this in edit here[2]. I think it's important not to ignore the effect violence can have on innocent people. I have to ask too, why did you say "dear friend"? You've never met this person before and you are having a disagreement with him/her, it looks weird. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and add it in then.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:POV would be valid if it was not from a cited source. The source clearly states that Sikhs see this as "Ghallughara" or massacre, there is no distortion of the over Neutral Point of View, because, other points of view have been include. I would be in favour of keeping Profitoftruth85, because many innocent people were caught up in this Operation (due to the fact it was carried out on the Martyrdom of Guru Arjun, who ironically gave his life for Hindu's). According to Cynthia Mahmood, there were thousands of innocent worshippers caught up in this, and massacred. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a massacre is very much a one sided view. The army also suffered causalities. The army did not "massacre" the separatists, the army moved on to eliminate them from the Golden Temple which resulted in armed conflict. Arjun^codename024 11:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You've completely ignored the paragraph I wrote on how this isn't a black and white issue.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Arjun you have ignored the reference from Cynthia Mahmood. The separatists deserved (rightly or wrongly) what happened to them, but this operation was done on the day of the Martyrdon of Guru Arjan. The place was rammed full of innocent worshippers, who were "massacred". I think General Sinha described it as a "Turkey shoot". I suggest you read the references, or we ask for WP:Mediation. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Iam sure their are few who believe this was a massacre( just like their are a few who believe the earth is flat). however NPOV is a core policy that specifically states that we do NOT give equal weight to all points of view but rather proportional weight. please see WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE for more details. vast majority of RS do NOT describe this as a massacre. this was a bona fide military action against well entrenched and well armed militants commanded by General Shahbeg Singh { with some collateral damage for sure) so using the term massacre to describe this event is inherently non NPOV. I think it is a fringe view ( calling it a massacre).--Wikireader41 (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fringe theory at all. And who are you kidding about impartiality? Your user page has a picture of General Sherman and a statement about how you wish India had a general like him.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we mention that "it is considered as a massacre as some" and use a footnote to point out the specific instances of who consider this as a massacre? If a section of sikhs viewing this as a massacre had an impact on them supporting the Khalistan movement, the view