Talk:Human rights abuses in Punjab, India

Reliable sources and NPOV

This article needs reliable, neutral, third-party sources. See WP:RS. Ensaaf is neither neutral, reliable (by WP policies), notable, or third-party. Human Rights Watch arguably is notable and third-party, and might be used as a source for charges, but the charges can't be presented as fact, which the original version of this article did (and which continues in some parts of the current version). Further, the article must be written with a neutral tone. See WP:NPOV. Priyanath ^talk 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ensaaf is definitely a reliable source. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not according to Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources, which is what we're talking about here. See WP:RS. Priyanath ^talk 02:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Priyanath's interpretation of Ensaaf as failing wp:RS. This is also under discussion at Talk:Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. I do think it can be used *wisely* in footnotes.- sinneed (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, ENSAAF is a very notable and reputable organization, having very high profile board of advisors, such as..Brad Adams, director of Human Rights Watch's Asia division, Sandra Coliver of Justice Initiatives, Inc., Carla Ferstman of Redress (charitable organisation), Paul Williams, executive director of Public International Law & Policy Group, Romesh Silva of Human Rights Data Analysis Group etc and it has another five high profile members in its board of directors. It has worked alongwith Human Rights Watch on several projects and both organizations have jointely released several publications. It definitely passes wp:rs--166.129.37.22 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oddly, the press doesn't seem to think so... it seems to be silent. I note that the same was true of SATP until an editor cared enough to find the notability. HRW is the only point I see giving it any note at all, or I would have been chopping it out to the talk page. Wikilinks are always interesting but they have nothing whatever to do with notability... wikipedia is not at all a wp:RS. - sinneed (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And... thank you for making this your very 1st wikipedia post.- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

NO! Sinneed, You might be wrong. There are 23,600 Google hits for this HRO. It appears that someone need to study them further. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

Thanks dear editor for pointing towards these references, I tried checking them and picked few important ones from the first few search page results. It is definitely a notable organization and several countries/world level organizations relied on Ensaaf to issue their reports, so it is definitely a RS:

• US government relied on Ensaaf reports while issuing its "2006 and 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", see: US Dept. of State, 2006 Country Report on Human Rights and US Dept. of State, 2006 Country Report on Human Rights
• Human Rights watch and Ensaaf jointly issued news reports on HRW website.
• United Nations Refugee Agency and Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada published their reports while relying on Ensaaf references/reports. 'Ensaaf'name appeared 25 times in this single report.
• The United Nations Refugee Agency's other 37 other publications where it relied on Ensaaf while issuing these reports.
• United Kingdom Border Agency relied on Ensaaf to release its official report.
• National Center for Charitable Statistics (United States) - details of Ensaaf
• [1] "Ensaaf, The Redress Trust (REDRESS), and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice]'s joint report in United Nations Working Group.
• United Nations - Universal Periodic Review - Ensaaf reports
• Immigration and refugee Board of Canada used/relied on Ensaaf reports in one of its official release:
• Center for Human Rights and Global Justice talking about ensaaf.
• United Kingdom parliament's publication documenting Ensaaf and its praise by 'Human Rights Watch'.
• Physicians for Human Rights talking about Ensaaf's contributions. --209.183.55.84 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Section on Terrorism/militants human rights violations

Human rights were violated by both Khalistani terrorists AND security forces. So I have added a section on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dropped source...

published by "A group of dedicated Sikhs to create awareness about Sikh issues in Canada and abroad. Not even an organization named.- sinneed (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this not be part of HR in India article?

Would a merge be a good idea?- sinneed (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well! an article on mass cremations was recently deleted under the logic that said information should be preserved in this article. Both sides, police/indian security forces and militants violated the human rights in Punjab at a very large scale. So I beileve that this article should stay as a separate article. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)