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.

Yes! And it's been documented (in "The Widow Colony" documentary film, among other places) that the policemen who were Sikh had their service weapons taken away and were not allowed to be on duty at this time. Also the police went to disarm the Sikhs before this "riot". This sounds pretty organised to me. It was nothing like a riot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.123 (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Please pay attention to what other editors have repeatedly stated on the AfD, a majority of the references are not reliable and including that content is not supported. Also, merging without attribution violates our GFDL policy. In addition, the content itself is in dispute, so please do not merge prior to an outcome on the AfD. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A few quick points: Sikhism is a religion, with Punjabi being the language of its sacred texts and the most common mother tongue of its adherents. Speaking of a "English-Sikh dictionary" makes as little sense as referring to a English-Muslim or English-Jew dictionary. Secondly, I haven't checked the dictionary TeamQuaternion cite, but a standard reference work in the area The Panjabi dictionary, Bhai Maya Singh, defines Ghallughara as:

GHALLÚGHÁRÁ ਘੱਲੂਘਾਰਾ s. m. Great destruction, loss of life, ruin; name of the battle which was fought near Barnala between the Sikhs and the Afghans under Ahmad Shah Durani in which the former sustained a loss of many thousands slain.

Lastly, while it is certainly the prerogative of any editor to make a merge argument at the AFD, it is not kosher to preempt the discussion by performing the merge while the discussion is ongoing. I'd request that we let the debate conclude to see where the consensus lies. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct Sikh apparently is not a language. Here is the source cited. If I find out that this source is actually a fake, it will greatly change my thinking. Probably should see it with my own eyes, but to tell you the truth, that deletion debate was pretty stressful, I wanted to let you know that I read your arguments but I really need to take a break from this for a while. If us Irish folks ever come back to this article it will be in a calmer frame of mind. We have just gotten over our own 800 year long religious war and let me tell you folks, take it from me, these things are a waist of time. This story is a sad one indeed.130.86.15.178 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Punjabi-English Dictionary, eds. S.S. Joshi, Mukhtiar Singh Gill, (Patiala, India: Punjabi University Publication Bureau, 1994) the definitions of "GHALOOGHAARAA" are as follows: "holocaust, massacre, great destruction, deluge, genocide, slaughter, (historically) the great loss of life suffered by Sikhs at the hands of their rulers, particularly on 1 May 1746 and 5 February 1762" (p. 293).

130.86.15.178 (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OR tag

I had tagged the article with Refimprove, as I find that is a kinder flag, but there was an objection. Tagging the article with OR. One alternative is simply to cut everything unsourced... the article will shrink a great deal. I think flagging is better.- Sinneed 14:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Riots vs. 3 day riot

It is not correct, and is not supported by the sources, to claim this was a single 3-day riot. It was a widespread period of unrest including murders and other crimes, multiple riots in multiple places in multiple cities. Please do not restore the singular riot without clear (multiple, please, as there are multiple reliable sources for multiple riots) sourcing.- Sinneed 21:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of government involvement

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1984_anti-Sikh_riots&curid=24305505&diff=357353950&oldid=357353705

Somebody should supply a reason for this section being marked as npov so it can be improved. I don't think the tag is deserved. Also Sinneed can you clarify what "way too much stew from small oysters" means?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"way too much stew from small oysters" - No, I really can't, please feel free to ignore it.

The section can be improved by focusing on government involvement, rather than focusing on the involvement of politicians in Congress-I. I do see allegations of government cover-up. More later.- Sinneed 21:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It is presently a compendium of various bits of negative press aimed at the Congress party. It is one-sided, and not focused on the government.

Then it launches into aftermath, which is the next section. The bits not about government involvement in the riots themselves either need a different heading, or to be in the section in which they belong, and they need to be balanced or neutral.- Sinneed 01:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

All that being said, if there is a wp:consensus to remove the tags, I will certainly support that. But I think there is no chance of such a consensus at this time.- Sinneed 01:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If you look at this specific section , there are only two sentences on the congress party, and they were there before my edits. I don't see why you added the npov tag in reference to attacks on the congress party in response to my edit, which does not mention the congress party at all. If you don't like those two sentences referring to the congress party in this section then delete them and remove the tag.

In reference to this article being an attack piece on congress; there are two sentences specifically attacking congress in it. The case against jagdish tytler does not attack congress at all and his party membership is only mentioned because of how the party reacted to him being charged. Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I read your note but I don't see how it relates to what I have said. You assign opinions/motivations to me which are not mine. "in response to my edit" - no. "this article being an attack piece on congress" - no. - Sinneed 03:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am assigning motives to you, I'm sorry, I don't mean to. When you reverted my original edit, I made this edit which I thought would help us reach consensus. When you added the POV tag with the "way too much stew from small oysters" comment (I'm not sure whether that was offensive or whether it was constructive) I thought you were trying to discredit the section and push your POV. Sorry about assigning bad intentions to you. Let's be constructive; I read your comment about the section being a collection of negative press about the congress party but when I looked through the article I didn't find it. If you go through the article and point out where you feel there is POV against the congress party and I'll fix it. Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

The section

I *strongly* recommend against this kind of analysis, it is offensive to the adding editors. It is better, in my experience, to simply flag the section and let interested editors lend help later. But you asked. I do not plan to discuss this further. If you gather consensus that the flag does not belong on the section, I will not oppose its removal. Until then, please understand that I am posting the below at your request, keeping the flag in the article, and moving on.

The section is incorrectly titled and presents only one side, and does so in a strongly slanted fashion.

• "There are allegations that the government destroyed evidence and shielded the guilty."Asian Age, an indian daily newspaper, ran a front page story calling the government actions "the mother of all cover-ups."[14][15]"

This is about coverup after the event, not involvement in the riots.

• "Eyewitness accounts obtained by TIME state the Delhi Police looked on as "rioters murdered and raped, having gotten access to voter records that allowed them to mark Sikh homes with large Xs, and large mobs being bused in to large Sikh settlements". [16]"

Police not attempting to stop rioters is bad, and if you review, say, the tapes of Hurricane Katrina, it is not uncommon in riots... 2 police vs 200 rioters == dead police, angrier rioters.

• "Time reported the riots only led to minor arrests and that no major politician or police officer had been convicted and quotes Ensaaf, a human rights organization, as saying the government worked to destroy evidence of involvement by refusing to record First Information Reports.[17]"

Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.

• "A Human Rights Watch report published in 1991 on violence between Sikh separatists and the Government of India traces part of the problem back to the government response to the violence: Despite numerous credible eye-witness accounts that identified many of those involved in the violence, including police and politicians, in the months following the killings, the government sought no prosecutions or indictments of any persons, including officials, accused in any case of murder, rape or arson.[18]"

Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.

• "There are allegations that the violence was led and often perpetrated by Indian National Congress activists and sympathizers during the riots."

Congress-I - Indira's party, would most certainly have had members who were *enraged* by her murder. And?

• "The government, then led by the Congress, was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, possibly acting as a conspirator. Conspiracy theorists argue that voting lists were used to identify Sikh families.[5]"

The only nebulous (read: POV) bit about the government's involvement in the riots. Most certainly, the government should have acted *MUCH* more quickly, and in fact hindsight would say **IMMEDIATELY** on publication of her murder by Sikh bodyguards, to quell unrest. The government failed. And?- Sinneed 18:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ensaaf.org/ - Partisan site, not appropriate as a source. It's stated purpose "end impunity", etc. - Sinneed 20:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2, in hopes of further discussion. The anti-government organisations being presented as human rights and civil rights orgs are also no good as sources. International watchdogs and the global press have hammered away at the civil rights problems in India. wp:reliable sources should be readily available if these are wp:notable allegations.- Sinneed 17:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ensaaf

Ensaaf is a credible human rights organization. Here is a report that is a collaboration of Ensaaf and Human Rights Watch. By the way here is the definition of impunity:the failure to bring perpetrators of human rights violations to justice and, as such, itself constitutes a denial of the victims' right to justice and redress. That is basically the stated goal of every human rights organization in the world.

You can't simply throw away a source because of strong wording. Here is Human Rights Watchs "about us" page "By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes." They are definitely considered an international watch dog but based on the criteria you just stated they wouldn't be considered credible enough to be included in the article because of a statement they have made.

A human rights organization criticizing government actions does not constitute an antigovernment source. Human Rights organizations routinely criticize governments with a lot stronger language than "end impunity"

To address what you brought up earlier the section could be split into "allegations of government involvement" and "allegation of government cover up"

"I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2, in hopes of further discussion." You really shouldn't delete references if they add to the article... --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't propose to do so. straw man fallacy - See the discussion of ENSAAF at a number of articles and at the wp:RSN, if interested. Partisan site, not appropriate as a source.- Sinneed 21:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, sorry be clearer next time. When I looked for Ensaaf on WP:RSN all I found was this where a person uses Ensaaf to push his point of view. I don't see how it is not a reliable source--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Clear: "I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2, in hopes of further discussion." - there is no way to be clearer. I encourage you to hew to a wp:NPOV. I am going to leave you 2 to your PoV push for now, and clean up later.- Sinneed 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• "There are allegations that the government destroyed evidence and shielded the guilty."Asian Age, an indian daily newspaper, ran a front page story calling the government actions "the mother of all cover-ups."[14][15]"

This is about coverup after the event, not involvement in the riots.

• This can go in a new coverup section or aftermath

• "Eyewitness accounts obtained by TIME state the Delhi Police looked on as "rioters murdered and raped, having gotten access to voter records that allowed them to mark Sikh homes with large Xs, and large mobs being bused in to large Sikh settlements". [16]"

Police not attempting to stop rioters is bad, and if you review, say, the tapes of Hurricane Katrina, it is not uncommon in riots... 2 police vs 200 rioters == dead police, angrier rioters.

• well this is a problem because at the same time the military was not allowed to get involved so the police were the only government peacekeeping force there. If we resolve the current issues I'll include this with a citation. In [[1] the army and national guard were sent in to deal with the looters so this is not a valid analogy.If you refer to a tape please provide a video of police standing by watching looters harming other people.

• "Time reported the riots only led to minor arrests and that no major politician or police officer had been convicted and quotes Ensaaf, a human rights organization, as saying the government worked to destroy evidence of involvement by refusing to record First Information Reports.[17]"

Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.

• This can go in a new coverup section or aftermath

• "A Human Rights Watch report published in 1991 on violence between Sikh separatists and the Government of India traces part of the problem back to the government response to the violence: Despite numerous credible eye-witness accounts that identified many of those involved in the violence, including police and politicians, in the months following the killings, the government sought no prosecutions or indictments of any persons, including officials, accused in any case of murder, rape or arson.[18]"

Speaks to cover-up after the fact, wrong section.

• This can go in a new coverup section or aftermath

• "There are allegations that the violence was led and often perpetrated by Indian National Congress activists and sympathizers during the riots."

Congress-I - Indira's party, would most certainly have had members who were *enraged* by her murder. And?

• and it noteworthy. Your statements's callousness is offensive in the extreme.

• "The government, then led by the Congress, was widely criticized for doing very little at the time, possibly acting as a conspirator. Conspiracy theorists argue that voting lists were used to identify Sikh families.[5]"

The only nebulous (read: POV) bit about the government's involvement in the riots. Most certainly, the government should have acted *MUCH* more quickly, and in fact hindsight would say **IMMEDIATELY** on publication of her murder by Sikh bodyguards, to quell unrest. The government failed. And?

• and thousands of people died in the riots and the decades following as a result. it poisoned the political climate for years afterwards. the government not sending in troops immediatley and lack of aid to the victims is notable. what do you mean and?--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no concept of what you are asking, and wp:TLDR.- Sinneed 21:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I just copied your previous objections and added a bullet about each one underneath. You said "I'll leave this and the new PoV up for a day or 2" so I wrote a response to your previous objections.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why you would do that, it is not useful as far as I can see. I will drop ENSAAF, per wp:RSN, later today.- Sinneed 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold, and lets see how much we really disagree, I haven't seen how you want the facts to be represented at all, I've just seen a critique of the sources. I think if you edited it the way you think is NPOV, we would have less disagreements. so look I won't edit it until you've brought it to your standard of npov and we can go from there--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I will wait, see if some other editor is interested. I have been through this several times on these religionism/nationalism articles. The article is adequately tagged to warn readers of the issues.- Sinneed 20:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

I will like to move the talk of efforts to help the Sikh families from the introduction. It serves no purpose in the introduction. It can come in some subsection. Surinderjeet Singh (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Remembrance - OR

The attack on the Sikh community in India is remembered annually by the Sikh diaspora, especially in Canada and the United Kingdom, countries with big Sikh populations. In the UK a remembrance march and freedom rally is held annually in June. A remembrance march and freedom rally is scheduled to take place on Sunday 13th June in London for 2010. The remembrance march will start from Hyde Park at 1pm and end at Trafalgar Square, where they will be a freedom rally. Many MP's and activists take part in the rally.

The Sikh Pogroms are are often cited as a reason for some Sikhs for the creation of a Sikh homeland in India, called Khalistan. It has now been 26 years since the attacks, but no one has been charged by the Indian government despite several high profile people, such as ***redacted***, being known amongst the Sikh community as ringleaders in inciting people to attack innocent Sikhs. **redacted** and others were also implicated by the Nanavati commision, that found credible evidence against them, yet despite this no convictions have been given.

This has been added in a couple of different forms. Possibly, if this is wp:notable it will need its own article, which could be linked here. Possibly, if it is addressed in the press, it may merit a sentence. But probably not. Is there any support to adding this section?- Sinneed 15:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is support for adding it, all this information is showing is that the attacks are remembered by the Sikh community and gives sources for the commission that implicated people but did not lead to any convitcions. This is hardly a matter of opinion but solid fact. Now do not delete this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.84.12 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I will remove the OR again this afternoon, unless it is sourced to published, generally wp:reliable sources, under WP is not a soapbox, wp:no original research. - Sinneed 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There are also wp:BLP violations. If restored, I will cut them immediately. Warning for BLP.- Sinneed 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Preserving some sources

EL cleanup, and I wanted to keep the possible article sources.

• A collection of articles on 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms
• Let Congress explain 1984 The Pioneer
• 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Homepage at Times of India
• Who are the guilty? at SACW.NET
• Charges for role in Anti Sikh riots
• Website by the attorney for November 1984 riot victims in Delhi.
• CBI to reinvestigate Anti-Sikh riots case
• Anti-Sikh riots a pogrom: Khushwant Rediff
• Victims of 1984 anti-Sikh riots reject Nanawati Commission Report, holds Congress responsible for the Carnage.
• 1984 Sikhs' Kristallnacht: 5-part video.
• NDTV X-Factor discussion about 1984 riots
• Interview with director and producer of documentary 'The Widow Colony'- Sinneed 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

#Investigations

This should summarized and its contents used to create a new article. I won't do it now because the article is so short on the actual events but I think once the article improves the list of investigations should be moved to a separate article.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)