Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots

Citations Missing Template

The first line in the article states "The template below (Citations missing) is being considered for deletion. See templates for deletion to help reach a consensus" but I could not find any place where I could go to oppose its deletion. Please Help.Singh6 (talk) 06:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This comment was orphaned at the top of the talk page. I added a section for it.
This was in reference to an obsolete template. I have replaced it with Refimprove.sinneed (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Did President Singh make any attempts to protect the Sikhs?

Did President Singh make any attempts to protect the innocent Sikhs from the slaughter? He could have used his authority and status to protect them in his presidential palace.

No he did not. No one would had expected such an act out of such a person, who for his supermacy and to save his presidential position, had signed the authorization orders of the attack on the Golden Temple, which had earlier given he men in uniform complete freedom to masacare innocent Sikhs in Punab at a masive scale. Between June 3rd & June 7th 1984 only around 5500 pilgrims and armed Sikhs were massacared in the Golden Temple Somples only, the figures from the rest of the Punjab peaking up in unaccounted highs. Rather than condemming the attack, he was seen walking around in the complex over the butchered bodies of the Sikh devotees fondling around with his red rose!!! If attack in the Sacredest of the Sikh Shrines did not instigate him to resign and show concern or raise a voice, no one could have expected any sympathy from him during Delhi Massacre.'—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.245.242 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The current title is wrong "1984 Anti Sikh Riots"

The word "Riot" does not describe the truth about the subject matter but misleads. The following are the problems associated with using the word "riot" to describe this subject matter: -

1. . It was not uncontrolled as the word "riot" would mean.
2. . The event was not spontaneous; nothing happened on the first day of the death of Indira Gandhi. People were gathered next day, armed and mobilized to kill Sikh and destroy their businesses in Delhi and other cities.
3. . The other side (the Sikhs) did not participate in killing Hindus. As such, both sides were not involved in a way as the word "riot" would hint. The Sikhs houses and businesses were marked and destroyed. They were killed on the streets by police. They were unarmed by police so that they cannot defend themselves.

The usage of word "riot" is very misleading. The correct title should be "1984 Anti Sikh Pogroms" as the Sikhs in Delhi were helpless, victimized and under an organized attack which aimed to wipe the entire Sikh population. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 00:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Its linked from genocide page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history#India_-_1984_anti_Sikh_Pogroms) and says riots. Its not true and as "RoadAhead" pointed out it should be changed.

Number killed?

I see no estimate here of the number killed or wounded, nor of the amount of property damage. I've seen estimates elsewhere. The article really must have some discussion of this. Interlingua 13:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The article is also missing more information about the sequence of events, allegations, charges etc. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 03:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

PoV

The treatment of Indian National Congress is clearly partisan. The conspiracy/coverup needs to be covered thoroughly, but it needs to be handled as such, rather than hammered away at in the article. Added flag.

Changed the old tag to refimprove. There are references. Some are bad. Some need work. Some need to be added.

In taking some content out of the lead-in and into the body, I duplicated some sections, rather than simply cut the content and move it here.

Adding a cleanup flag as well.

sinneed (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pulled a *LOT* of unsourced claim.

"Mobs are armed with iron rods of a uniform size. Activist editor Madhu Kishwar claims seeing the rods being distributed amongst the miscreants." Relevance? Also no source. But even with a source...no relevance.

"Mobs also have abundant supplies of petrol and kerosene. Victims later traced the source of kerosene to dealers belonging to the Congressional party." Erm. Traced the source of kerosene? No. Maybe by magic. It doesn't have fingerprints.

"In other localities, the priority of the police, as later stated by the then police commissioner S.C. Tandon before the Nanavati Commission, is to take action against Sikhs who resist the attacks." Sourcable if so.

One section was overtly wp:BLP and very negative. I removed it entirely.

sinneed (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor: inconsistent dates

See also section: 'H. S. Phoolka, senior advocate of Delhi High court who has been spearheading the legal crusade for the victims of the 1984 Sikh Massacre since 1983.' 1993? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaconway88 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

160 references removed? POV fork problem reintroduced.

I am a little concerned about the removing a large amount of material from this article recently including 160 citations. Especially since it was done with out discussion.

Care to explain what specifically is unreliable about each source, including an English-Sikh dictionary?

This recent edit also created or recreated what the editor claims is a point of view fork?TeamQuaternion (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)