Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Casualties figure in the infobox

Content in Question is

Deaths = (official) 2,800
(unofficial) 8,000

which has been replaced here by D4iNa4 in this edit with (diffs [1] [2])

Casualties

Death(s)= 8,000- 17,000 Sikhs

References

@D4iNa4: Please restore the original version, there are many wild allegations going on around with claims from few hundred to even lakhs. The infobox has to include the widely accepted figures and not your favourite wild figure. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Nanavati commission source says Government's "survey showed that 2800 Sikhs were killed in Delhi". Your own source is only talking about what happened in "the affected areas in the capital, Delhi". We are not going to add figures ("3,000") only from Delhi in infobox.[3][4]

If any reliable sources says there were "few hundred" or "even lakhs", then you can consider showing them here so that it won't look like you are making WP:POINT. Figures as "8,000 - 17,000" Sikhs are also reliably sourced,[5][6] and can be supported with other reliable sources which estimate at 10,000.[7] D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Virtually every source seems to have a different estimate; even the Sage Encyclopedia has two different estimates in different sections. If we include these in the infobox, then each one needs to be included with its source, and if different RS give different estimates, they need to be reported, too. Choosing an arbitrary range is inappropriate. Also, D4iNa4, you went and looked up the SAGE source, which is commendable; and then you used the 17,000 estimate from it, but not the 2733 estimate from a different section. If that's not inappropriate cherry-picking, I don't know what is. The sentence as framed in the lead at the moment isn't grammatical, and is shoehorning the statistics into the first paragraph, which at the moment looks like it's trying to right a great wrong, rather than present a reasonable encyclopedia article. Vanamonde (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The source is talking about "casualties ... in Delhi" and says 2733 were killed in Delhi according to 1987 estimate, as official statement reads "2733 persons were killed during 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi as per the Report of Ahooja Committee appointed by the Government of NCT of Delhi."[8] Other sources also state that "2733" Sikhs were killed in Delhi alone.[9] Some sources state that overall 20,000 were killed though.[10][11][12] D4iNa4 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• D4iNa4 it appears as though your understanding of what constitutes a reliable source is very poor. In link 1 the author says Sikhs have "said" 20,000 were killed. Here in 2nd link [13] you are quoting the numbers stated by the president of Khalistan council as a reliable source. in the third link you are trying to pass the belief of the blogger as fact, to quote the blog "It is widely believed that at least 20,000". So clearly you are trying to push opinions as facts here. With such a poor understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, I suggest you to stop editing controversial articles. As has been already called out by others what you have been doing here is a clear cherry picking of biased and unreliable source that has printed wild allegations on the numbers, in an obvious attempt to inflate the casualty figures of the infobox and the article lead. This is a blatant disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:RS to push your Pro Khalistani and anti-congress POV here. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have not added "20,000" figure anywhere on article nor I have suggested it should be added. I only mentioned here that more sources exists that estimate wider and if they have been mentioned by reliable sources; first link is published by Penguin Books, a reliable source, and I don't have to describe 2nd and 3rd one. As for POV pushing, I would recommend you to take a look at how long this talk page looks now only because one person (but never before) wants to treat reliable sources as "opinions" and cites WP:BLPCRIME as justification.[14] That is certainly "a blatant disregard of WP:NPOV and WP:RS" that no one else has ever seen on this article before. Now if you are going to continue disputing reliable sources by pushing your own sentiments and attack contributors, then don't expect a response from me as I don't want to waste any more time telling you something that has been already told to you and is too obvious for anyone else to understand. D4iNa4 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• here are the edits that inflated the casualty figures [15] [16] and it is clear who has introduced them without discussion. Follow BRD, generate consensus for such controversial edits. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Figures are reliably sourced to high quality sources. Your objection reads like WP:IDONTLIKE. If someone else registers objections by finding reliable sources that dispute the figures then we will see. But you need to stop edit warring. Orientls (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, Khalistani president is a high quality source right ? and so are believes of some Sikhs ? who are you kidding here ? --DBigXrayᗙ 10:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
• with these edits diff ahead, D4i4na has controversially inflated the casualty figures in the article, without consensus, he has have been reverted by me and per BRD you are supposed to make consensus instead of edit warring. [17] [18]. I have fllowed BRD here, instead of accusing me of Edit warring why dont you make arguments to explain the edits. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Paul Joseph, SAGE publication, don't seem to be "Khalistani president".[19] You are not following BRD but edit warring. If these figures are controversial then you should easily discover reliable sources disputing them. We can't take your opinion over reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• The Cherry picking that was done with SAGE was already debunked by Vanamond above, please read again. here is the [20]--DBigXrayᗙ 11:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You are misreading and still misrepresenting. It was proven that source was not cherrypicked and figures for Delhi are not figures for entire country. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, Umm.......D4INA4 was quite correct in his rebuttal and he was not cherrypicking, at-least in that instance (though I am yet to read the other cases). Read the Ahuja-Commitee report over here. Best, ∯WBG^converse 13:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The 1984 Delhi Anti-Sikh Pogrom refers to a four-day pogrom that took place in various parts of India’s capital, New Delhi, causing the death of nearly 3,000 Sikhs

References

the most commonly cited figure for the number killed in the rioting is 3000, though the Indian government settled on fig of 2700. Elsewhere the figures has ranged from 5,500 to 8,000 and upward to anywhere from 10,000 to 17,000

References

The infobox and the first line of the article should use commonly cited figures (and any controversy about the casualty figures should be discussed in the article body) but instead of using the commonly used figure D4in4a and Orientis are batting here for the most "wild figure" in an obvious attempt to inflate. And only stating "reliable source" as a justification for their reverts. This should be very obvious to anyone what is the intention behind these cherry picking and edit warring. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly what your source says, that the "Delhi Anti-Sikh Pogrom ... in various parts of India’s capital, New Delhi, causing the death of nearly 3,000 Sikhs". It is well supported by many other reliable sources that 3,000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi alone.[21][22][23] We are not going to represent the Delhi-only figure as figure for whole country. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

and where are your reliable sources for supporting 17K ? --DBigXrayᗙ 12:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not take a liking for this style of quasi-IDHT conversation, that this has manifested into. The SAGE source is un-doubtably a reliable one and it supports the figure of 17k.

And, FWIW, both of you have presented sources that support the figures you wish to cite.

Thus, the debate ought to be focused on the aspects of the current scholarly consensus of the nation-wide death-toll and probably, both of you can make a start by presenting a list of scholarly sources with their respective figures and commentary (if any).

I note, in passing, that this source near-certainly refers to the Delhi-tolls. ∯WBG^converse 13:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Winged Blades of Godric If you start reading SGPC and pro-Khalistan supporter's books, you will get figures that are even higher than what is being discussed here. No doubt there are many official and non official figures published. My sole point of opening this thread was to make sure that a figure that is widely respected and widely cited should be used instead of a "favourite wild figure of death count".--DBigXrayᗙ 13:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, absolutely.

Every oppressed group tends to over-inflate the figures, (quite dramatically) and statements sourced to them ought be discounted, as to the figures in the infobox.

FWIW, I don't have any clue why D4ina4 was presenting these sources, both of which are unreliable and by a mile, in this aspect.

I will urge to stick to the high quality scholarly-sources, which are quite abundant. ∯WBG^converse 14:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray claims that I intentionally selected a high figure and reliable sources could be ignorant. He is wrong about both things and that is really what I was explaining that higher figures exists but I ignored them, because victims do estimate the figures higher than independent sources and similarly independent sources also had no intention of inflating the figures otherwise they would have also selected "20,000". I clarified above that I have neither added them on article nor suggested that they should be added. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The court said the November 1984 riots, in which 2,733 Sikhs were murdered in Delhi alone and nearly 3,350 all over the country. Indian Express

User:Winged Blades of Godric this from the court order is a reliable figure and I suggest we include this into the infobox.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray:@D4iNa4: Please directly add the references to the infobox along the numbers as is precedent with disputed figures. And it should be clearly defined therein that the figures are estimates and where they come from. Gotitbro (talk) 05:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotitbro thanks for your kind comments. The point here is that the Infobox casualty figure should report widely respected figure that are properly vetted and not a bunch of estimates published here and there. The figure mentioned by the High court has been vetted by judicial commissions. If you look at other unvetted estimates you will find that several NGOs and Human rights orgs have published multiple estimates of casualties, D4ina4, has randomly selected the one that has max number, without any justification why that figure and not others. All these estimates, if by a reputed and reliable source must be mentioned and discussed in the article body and not the infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying is whichever figures are added to the infobox the references should be added right besides them and it should be clearly displayed where the figures are from (like in brackets). Just like is the case with other contentious articles (2002 Gujarat riots; 1971 Bengali genocide etc.) and was the case here not sure why it was changed as such by D4iNa4. And if there are widely reported official figures they should be added to the infobox (take a look at the 2002 Gujarat riots infobox for example). Gotitbro (talk) 15:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotitbro I got your point already, but the concern here is other than the one figure from High court, there is no single reliable figure. multiple books have published multiple estimates, (just take a look at the sources above, and then if you google you will find more such figures) which all are you going to add into the infobox ? --DBigXrayᗙ 15:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The official figure should definitely be there in the infobox in that case. And I agree with Vanamonde that the range seems to have been arbitrarily selected (with no references in the ib and no indication of source), which makes it seem like this is an agreed upon figure. This is a rather contentious edit and should have been discussed on the Talk page first. Gotitbro (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotitbro, earlier version misrepresented sources. It is not up to us to claim there is a dispute just because one has seen unfavorable figures. Infobox perfectly states "8,000 - 17,000" as the estimates from independent sources as no similar figure has been published by official sources. These figures have been mentioned throughout article, so there is no need to mention sources in the infobox. You can move the sources yourself and multiple sources have been provided above if you read the discussion above. There has been no dispute or debate presented by high quality scholarly in context of casualties so far. DBigXray wants to mention that only 3,000 were killed which is contrary to his own sources which say that 3,000 Sikhs were killed in Delhi alone. What DBigXray wants is not going to happen. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Gotitbro This is a rather contentious edit and should have been discussed on the Talk page first, correct. Regarding the Indian Express figures, here, they are the figures used by Court, after vetting by judicial commissions which had heard the pleas from citizens, NGOs, third parties etc and had even directed the police to file several cases after finding the merit in their pleas. So I consider this figure highly reliable and more than just government numbers. Something that --DBigXrayᗙ 16:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

D4iNa4 , The articel contains mess, is not an excuse to restore more mess and to keep mess in the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

A court document is not going to supersede a high quality source like Sage. Take some time to read what is a WP:RS. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"There has been no dispute or debate presented by high quality scholarly in context of casualties so far."
Exactly why the source needs to be mentioned as is precedent this article is no exception. Exact same discussions are there on the Talk of the Gujarat riots which led to the current infobox there. And the references should be right there in the infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Pogroms

The existing talk page consensus is to use the word riots and not use colourful words like pogroms, genocide, etc etc this is the WP:CONSENSUS version that was changed by IPs unaware of the threads. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I was not able to find those in the archives. Please link to the pages where consensus was reached? -- Elephanthunter (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Here? Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots/Archive 1#Requested move. Britmax (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Britmax: I'm assuming that's what DBigXRay is referring to? 🤷‍♂️ @DBigXray: are you referring to the page move request? -- Elephanthunter (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this Talk:1984_anti-Sikh_riots/Archive_3 discussion is being misrepresented where 4 editors disagreed with lone DBigXray's demand to remove particular terms from the page contrary to scholarly description. Look how no one used the term "Genocide" in any recent edits but DBigXray claims otherwise. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

we have overwhelming clear community consensus at Talk:1984 anti-Sikh riots/Archive 1#Requested move to steer clear from colourful POV words such as genocide and pogroms and stick to NPOV word riot. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

That's a page move request. I agree that if the canonical name is "1984 anti-Sikh riots", that should be the title of the page. That doesn't mean the words "genocide" and "pogrom" should not appear anywhere. --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is objecting to the presence of "pogroms", if properly sourced, somewhere in the body of the article. The infobox, on the other hand, would require very solid sourcing and you would need to show that the term is a mainstream scholarly term used to describe the riots. If you do have such sources, you can try to get consensus here on the talk page (perhaps an RfC?). --regentspark (comment) 16:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems like most people are of the opinion that scholarly sources would be appropriate for this. An RfC might be overkill unless we somehow fail to reach consensus. Here's a couple of scholarly sources that I've found that indicate that the 1984 anti-Sikh riots were pogroms

• Quotes: "The anti-Sikh riots of 1984 also revealed that the minorities from any religious persuasion constantly face a danger of persecution and even pogrom in the wake of any communal clash when the passion of the majority community runs high." p198 / "The pogrom was systematically executed and carefully planned" p200 Written by Prof. Abdulrahim P. Vijapur - https://www.amu.ac.in/dshowfacultydata2.jsp?did=83&eid=8302
• Paper title: "The Anti-Sikh Pogrom of October 31 to November 4, 1984, in New Delhi" Quote: "The 1984 Delhi Anti-Sikh Pogrom refers to a four-day pogrom that took place in various parts of India’s capital, New Delhi, causing the death of nearly 3,000 Sikhs." Written by Baixas Lionel, PhD Candidate in Political Science_ Centre de Sciences Humaines (CSH) / CERI Sciences Po Paris
• Book title: "Betrayed by the state: the anti-Sikh pogrom of 1984" Written by Jyoti Grewal Ph.D., Dean of University College, Zayed University - https://www.luther.edu/headlines/?story_id=577091
• Quote: "A similar trend is seen in the way the two major commissions of inquiry constructed a partial image of the 1984 pogrom due to bureaucratic delays." Written by Deepak Mehta, co-editor of the reputed journal Contributions to Indian Sociology, and Rahul Roy, Professor of Sociology at Shiv Nadar University, India.

There are many more news publications that reaffirm the label "pogrom", but this is just a quick search of scholarly sources. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Elephanthunter I have just reverted your repeated insertion of disputed content. IF you repeat this again, I will ask page protection or blocks or both.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at our Pogrom article and that definition does fit so all we really need are sources that label the riots as pogroms. Assuming these sources are reasonable, I'd be ok with adding pogrom in the infobox. --regentspark (comment) 00:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

regentspark lets not jump into conclusion based on WP:Cherry picked POV sources. It has to be established that this is the WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources and not just by sources that have been written to present the WP:POV of the SGPC and the militants. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

In the infobox, pogrom would be one of many "methods" and I don't think the bar for inclusion there is very high. The bar is much higher in the lead, and very high in the lead sentence, and I don't see that being satisfied by these references. --regentspark (comment) 13:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I feel like this is fair. We list "pogrom" in the infobox accompanied by these sources. We do not list "pogrom" in the lead sentence unless there are new sources that satisfy a higher bar, and consensus is first reached on the talk page. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with the consensus version. For the first sentence, we use the term "riot" since it is the most commonly used term. However, I think it is OK to add a line (with sources) in the article saying that the riots have also been termed as "pogroms" or "genocide".--DreamLinker (talk) 19:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

References

• I don't see any consensus to remove "pogrom" from the infobox neither any users other than DBigXray are professing the deletion. Given DBigXray lost losing debate last year over this same POV pushing, I would note that these repeated rounds of POV pushing are blatant WP:DE and WP:IDHT. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

• "The anti-Sikh violence of 1984 was not a riot. The massacres were not spontaneous, anomalous or disorganized. According to a report belatedly commissioned by the Government of India in 2000, “but for the backing and help of influential and resourceful persons, killing of Sikhs so swiftly and in large numbers could not have happened.”"TIME magazine, also found in this Book.
• "After the assassination, senior politicians and police officers orchestrated pogroms of Sikhs" Human rights watch
• "One particularly devastating pogrom took place in 1984; known as the “1984 Sikh Massacre,” approximately 3,000 Sikhs died in Delhi".SAGE.
• "anti-Sikh riots broke out in 1984—a series of organized pogroms against the Sikh community was directed by ... The media covered the entire event of the 1984 Sikh Massacre"SAGE

We clearly have more than many WP:RS to describe the incident as "pogrom", "anti-Sikh massacre" than "communal riots" where there were killings only on one side, not other. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit since it is clearly not the "stable version". However, I will go through your sources and decide if we should do the change.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Not a good revert since that "edit" complied with WP:STATUSQUO; new changes require consensus not revision to stable version. These sources are of great quality and thus there are no reasons for ignoring the status quo. Tessaracter (talk) 12:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Tessaracter Sorry for the revert. This was an oversight on my part. I only checked the history for the past few days and thought that was the stable version, when I should have checked the earlier versions as well. Thank you for correcting this and my apologies once again for the inconvenience.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Merge?

Should The Wall Of Truth be merged into this article? DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 14:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Specifically the #Impact_and_legacy section. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

DiplomatTesterMan I guess we could mention a bit about it here. I don't have any strong opinions about merging that article into this one. Since the memorial is also dedicated to Sikh victims of hate crimes in other countries, I guess we can let it stay as an independent article for now.--DreamLinker (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Added a line. Yes the article should remain according to me too. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 08:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This article reads half-like Hindutva propaganda

Like all articles on community relations in India, including ones that should be about Hindu bigotry, this one reads like right-wing Hindu propaganda, designed to inflate Hindu victimism and explain away violence against non-Hindus.Rafe87 (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

Please change the name of this page from "1984 anti-Skih riots" to "1984 Sikh Genocide". Several civil rights groups, human rights groups, and governments have declared that what happened to the Sikh population during this time was a GENOCIDE. Calling it a riot is simply incorrect and dismisses what actually happened. The government aided and abetted in the systemic killing of Sikhs, with the intent and purpose of erases the specific group of people, and it is therefore considered a genocide. So, once again, please change the title and all other areas where it's mentioned from "1984 anti-Sikh riots" to "1984 Sikh Genocide". Thank you. Pneetk (talk) 06:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

See previous discussions [24]. Seems that editors considered "riot" to be the WP:COMMONNAME. Requests for renames are made at WP:RM. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2020

change title of article '1984 anti-Sikh riots' to '1984 Sikh genocide'

change 'a series of organised pogroms[8][9][10] against Sikhs in India in response to the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards' to 'a series of organized events lead by the Indian Army against innocent civilian Sikhs'

change 'organisation of the riots' to 'organization of the genocide'

change 'Bhindranwale died and militants were removed from the temple complex.' to 'Bhindrawale was killed along with several innocent Sikhs attending service in the temple complex'

remove 'In the violent events leading up to the Operation Blue Star since the inception of Akali Dharm Yudh Morcha, the militants had killed 165 Hindus and Nirankaris, even 39 Sikhs opposed to Bhindranwale were killed. ' since there is no reliable (un-biased) source for that. Av kaur (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:NPOV. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Title Correction

As claimed by the DBigXray that the title cannot be Genocide or Pogrom . In the talk page on this issue there is hardly any claim for 'riot'. On what bases the word 'riot' is selected? On what bases 'Genocide' is not the correct title? When it is a genocide recognized by so many authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gulzar Singh05 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Gulzar Singh this was a genocide because it was a genocide not because some one authorised. They all work for their own benefits or take decisions by voting both goes against Sikhs. We can’t waste our time with them , it’s our own fault we chosen a side while partition. Ranjeet.singh (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Locking wiki

The Sikh Genocide affected millions and is an evolving story. Locking such important documents violates the very idea of open source DrAshishPandey (talk) 12:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

While the article is protected, you may make your edit requests here. Someone will make the changes for you if they are in line with our policies.--regentspark (comment) 17:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing open source or unbiased. No need to make changes here we will bring change on the ground. Ranjeet.singh (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sikh Genocide

Please change this title!! It was not a Anti-Sikh Riot it was the Sikh Genocide. Facts please!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.220.135 (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

At last check, the facts are that the common name is "riots", not "genocide". —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2020

Change the title of this article from “1984 anti-sikh-riots” to “1984 Genocide” 24.79.30.93 (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Unlikely to be granted. Please read the talk page debate on this issue and find a dictionary definition of the words "genocide". Britmax (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. And WP:NPOV RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2020

Change 'riots' to 'genocide'. I am not even a Sikh, yet even I know what happened in 1984 was a genocide against Indian Sikh people. Whakayis (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

You will have to provide a source for this, and are advised to read the previous discussions on this matter. Britmax (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We go with how reliable sources describe the event, and they call it riots. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Sikh Genocide :1984 were not Sikh-Riots but Sikh Genocide.

Indian government is in denial, But All free and justice minded human beings know that It was not Sikh riots, But a planed genocide of Sikhs by Indian saffron government.

Timeline(Title should be corrected to Sikh Genocide) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_anti-Sikh_riots

The Sikh Genocide started around 1947 in India and will continue until Sikhs establish a state independent from India.The brutality between 1984 to 1995 was especially severe. References: https://time.com/3545867/india-1984-sikh-genocide-anniversary/ https://ensaaf.org/ https://www.amazon.com/1984-Indias-Guilty-Pav-Singh/dp/1911271083 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinJill (talk • contribs) 01:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The Time piece is an opinion column by a non-neutral party who acknowledges that "riot" is still the common term. —C.Fred (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead/Second paragraph

Hi, the second paragraph of the lead appears overly digressive. I welcome suggestions to trim it JoyceGW1 (talk) 07:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Digressive and IMO appeared to have been inserted seemingly to justify the pogroms. I have trimmed it to be less devious. JoyceGW1 (talk) 10:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2020

To accurately reflect the actions, change the page title from "1984 anti-Sikh riots" to "1984 Sikh Genocide". Jaskeerat2302 (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar fix

demanding greater rights and autonomy for the Punjab

should be:

demanding greater rights and autonomy for Punjab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhooyr (talk • contribs) 09:50, 2020 December 27 (UTC)

@Nhooyr: Done. Seems like a relatively simple grammar fix. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

Jatt885 (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Please change the name to 1984 Sikh Genocide because that is what it was. I don't understand how eliminating the jews was a genoicide but eliminating sikhs were riots. I dont assume anything will be done because whoever can edit this page supports BJP.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

Change "The 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also known as the 1984 Sikh Massacre, was a series of organised pogroms[8][9][10] against Sikhs in India following the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards." to "The 1984 anti-Sikh riots, also known as the 1984 Sikh Massacre, was a series of organized programs[8][9][10] against Sikhs in India following the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards after Gandhi had ordered the Indian Army to attack the Harmandir Sahib, the most Sacred place of Worship for Sikhs. Her attack order prior to her assassination resulted in the death of thousands of Civilians, many of whom were Sikh."

This is a very important edit to make because without the additional context, it makes it sound like her bodyguards killed her for no reason. "Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered a military assault on the most significant religious center for the Sikhs, Darbar Sahib (i.e., the Golden Temple) in Amritsar, Punjab. The attack killed thousands of civilians." Time.com Ximfly (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. NPOV issues. Current wording is fine, reason for the assassination already in background section. A link is also provided in sentence for background info. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021

the title should be changed to genocide as the event has been classified as such and not a “riot” 2001:569:506B:B300:547C:286F:BEBA:2AAE (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 03:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Should "Sikh Genocide" be added to the list of names of the riots?

I know the primary name shouldn't be changed to something like the "Sikh Genocide" until a conclusion has been reached on the talk page, but "Sikh Genocide" is one of the names used for these riots, along with "1984 Sikh Massacre". So should it be added to the top of the page? ~Chara of Arctic Circle System (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

A Senate Resolution condemning the November 1984 anti-Sikh violence in India as genocide

In spite of repeated requests THIS ARTICLE doesn't recognize 1984 Sikh Genocide. Many jurisdictions in North America through formal process have recognized it as Sikh genocide. The latest addition is state of "New Jersey" .. Please see the full text here: https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/SR142/id/2468331

This bill passed thorough New Jersey senate recognizes 1984 Sikh Genocide. https://legiscan.com/NJ/text/SR142/id/2468331 A Senate Resolution condemning the November 1984 anti-Sikh violence in India as genocide.

What justification Wikipedia has to not recognize it as Genocide? KevSinghG (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Feel free to discuss and build consensus for this proposed change here on the talk page Cannolis (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2022

this wikipedia page is trying to hide the fact that over tens of thousands more sikhs died from 1978-1995 and i am here to change the fact that only the riots parts was done but in the real world there is more under the iceberg than we know of, it would be grateful of me if i can add in details of fake encounters were thousands of sikh youth were killed in staged shootouts, and some operations were thousands were 'picked up' and to never be seen again. thank you if you allow me to bring more light to the real sikh genocide and not whitewash it with just the riots part. Sikh-Historian21 (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022

What happened in 1984 in Punjab and Delhi India is not riot but absolute Genocide ask any person from Sikh community because they r minority in India and that's why they were targeted Dp Kundu (talk) 00:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The events are recognized as genocide in the Ontario and Connecticut legislatures; and a rudimentary google scholar search pulls up several peer reviewed articles on the first page. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Sikh+Genocide&btnG= Chomskywala (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2022

change the sentence under Meetings and weapons distribution from It began assaulting Sikhs, stopping cars and buses to pull Sikhs out and burn them. to The mob began to assault Sikhs, stopping cars and buses to pull them out and burn their turbans. for clarity and to better reflect the source. 207.194.236.26 (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Tow (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

To change the name of this Article

I request to the editors of the wikipedia to change the name of this article from "1984 anti‐Sikh riots" to "1984 Sikh Genocide" because it was a genocide not a riot.

Shubhdeep Sandhu (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

You have some sources here, and it can certainly be mentioned(if not already) that some term this event as a genocide, but to change this title you will need to establish that the preponderance of English language reliable sources use the term genocide to reference this event. 331dot (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:COMMONNAME. The title of a topic in the English Wikipedia is generally what the preponderance of English language sources use for it. We don't necessarily use official or legal names. We can certainly note the existence of other names, or legal determinations as to what to term an event in the article itself. You asked me how to do this- you can do some research to see what the press, historians, governments, and others generally call this event. The word genocide is very charged and needs to be supported. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Here are more preponderance of English language sources

https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/the-1984-sikh-genocide-36-years-on?format=amp

https://www.outlookindia.com/art-entertainment/diljit-dosanjh-what-happened-in-1984-was-not-riots-it-was-genocide-news-223388/amp

https://www.baaznews.org/p/1984-sikh-genocide-elections

https://www.geo.tv/latest/449491-khalistan-convoy-for-1984-sikh-genocide-remembrance-in-canada

https://www.sikhpa.com/know-the-facts-of-1984-sikh-genocide/

https://www.basicsofsikhi.com/post/sikh-genocide-of-1984

https://dailytimes.com.pk/1020712/khalistan-convoy-for-1984-sikh-genocide-remembrance-in-canada/amp/

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2338205/new-jersey-passes-resolution-condemning-1984-sikh-genocide-in-india

https://www.ecaasu.org/2019-3-25-the-1984-sikh-genocide-what-it-is-and-why-we-need-to-know-about-it/

https://www.worldsikh.org/wso_welcomes_passing_of1984_sikh_genocide_motion_in_ontario

https://www.ndp.ca/news/ndp-statement-38th-anniversary-1984-sikh-genocide

https://www.peacejusticestudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SPanag.pdf

https://usac.ucla.edu/documents/resolutions/ResolutiontoRecognizetheSikhGenocideof1984.pdf

https://maktoobmedia.com/2021/12/07/1984-sikh-genocide-former-congress-mp-sajjan-kumar-charged-with-murder-rioting/amp/

bandukia (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Bandukia You may start a formal Request for Comment to establish a consensus for such a move, but this is going to be a big undertaking. Most of your sources seem limited to India, and possibly ones inclined to use that very charged terminology. It's a preponderance of all sources, not just Indian ones- and you're going to likely need help in finding them from others. 331dot (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, but I disagree with two things here, 1st, these links are not limited only to India; 2nd I disagree with your personal statement or understanding of this topic as "Charged Terminology", Stating the truth does not constitues to be charged, but the constant "Sikh Genocide Denial"[25] does become charged and biased in my mind.

I am going to list the country of origin of each website I have mentioned above,

Global:

humanrightspulse

USA:

https://usac.ucla.edu/about/

https://www.ecaasu.org/history/

Canada:

https://www.worldsikh.org/team

https://www.ndp.ca

https://www.baaznews.org

Pakistan:

https://tribune.com.pk

https://dailytimes.com.pk

https://www.geo.tv

UK:

https://www.sikhpa.com

https://www.basicsofsikhi.com

India:

https://www.outlookindia.com

So I would like to state that it complies with rules set by you here of, a preponderance of all sources, not just Indian ones. bandukia (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please reply :) bandukia (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• @Bandukia: Since this is almost certainly going to be contentious, you should make your case through a WP:RM. My guess is that you'll need to show that a preponderance of sources refer to the events as "anti-Sikh genocide" rather than "anti-Sikh riots" for the move to succeed, so you might want to take that into account when marshaling your evidence. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2023

Change riot to genocide 82.6.50.32 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: See above, where it's been noted that a formal WP:Requested move would need to be open, along with demonstrating that a prepondering of the sources call it a genocide. —C.Fred (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Identity of Hindu Mobs

The well-documented identity of attackers in 1984 Sikh Massacre is not being reported. The facts need to correctly stated as mentioned in various credible and verifiable sources identifying attackers as "Hindu Mobs" and not just "Mobs."

Sources:

Angry Indian Mobs Hunt Down Sikhs https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/11/02/angry-indian-mobs-hunt-down-sikhs/8843ec07-a2d2-4331-861c-b0b196e47b62/

Sikhs Attacked by Hindus in At Least 8 Indian Cities https://www.nytimes.com/1984/11/01/world/assassination-india-violence-ripples-through-nation-sikhs-attacked-hindus-least.html Princhest01 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

Can u change the it’s title to genocide as this was not a riot but a genocide against Sikh community. The definition of genocide according to UN’s definition aligns with this incident. It is often referred as riots so, the word genocide is not associated with previous Indian government. Making it seem like a riot takes the meaning away and hides the actually incident that took place. Please change the title to Sikh Genocide as these were clearly planned, supported by media, originated propaganda was planned and supported by Indian government and Hindu nationalist leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:7B7E:800:75A2:79F2:B3F5:C7F6 (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please achieve consensus in a move request — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Figures

@CanadianSingh1469: Can you confirm where you read "20,000" figure in this source by providing quote? The source you have provided[26] does not come from an academic publisher thus you shouldn't be using this higher estimate. Orientls (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Is the University of Michigan not an academic publisher? Also the author is a civil rights activist, and was an MLA. Also the introduction of the book is written by retired Supreme Court Justice Kuldip Singh. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

It was not published by the University of Michigan, it was published by Ajanta, though the UofM may have digitalized or loaned the book to Google Books, please do not obfuscate facts like that. Moreover, anyone can call themselves a civil rights advocate and he was an MLA for one year- thirty years back. He has 2 books published by SAGE, but was a marketing executive for most of his life and has no extensive educational background in areas like sociology, anthropology, terrorism etc. He is a marginally reliable source and should be given less weight than other authors who do have extensive educational background or hold tenure in a university (it's also likely that Jaijee was rounding up the 17,000 figure to 20,000 anyways). Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@CanadianSingh1469 At this point, from the history of your editing, I feel that you are facing serious troubles filtering and identifying WP:INDEPENDENT and high quality WP:RS in the contentious areas — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I will go through them. The source to me is reliable. There is a discussion in Operation Blue Star and it was agreed that the source is generally reliable. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@CanadianSingh1469: No one said he is not reliable. The issue is that these types of claims require more details. I have also used Jaijee on the article but only for the information he provides credible details. I read somewhere some years ago that a pro-Khalistani group estimated up to 25,000 deaths. But if I found that information again, then at best it would need to be added to a section only with attribution, but not in infobox or lead. Are you fine with that? Orientls (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I am fine with that. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

103.183.33.16 (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)     (1984 anti-Sikh riots) Indira Gandhi was assassinated later and first Gurdwara Sahib was attacked.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 04:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

CanadianSingh1469 The infobox in this article implicates BJP and RSS in the kllings, citing a source by Jaijee's book page 109, I took a look at the book and p.109 doesn't seem to say anything about BJP or RSS. Furthermore, you added a source Terrorism in the Tarai by Jitender Kaur, a book which is not available on Google Books, Internet Archive, or any other library-esque platform, making me somewhat curious as to how you gained access to this information.Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t add that to the infobox. Also are you sure you are using the right book by Jaijee? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For Terrorism in the Tarai I used this glitch (I think it is) where you can trick the Google snippet into giving most or the entire page of the book. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You're right about the info box part. My sincere apologies for that, the edit was made in close proximity to one of yours which is why I assumed that. Orientls could you kindly explain? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No worries. What book of Jaijee’s did you check? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:43, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I checked page 109 of Jaijee's SAGE book The Long Road to Normalcy. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Where did you find it? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

LibGen Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for telling CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to it that you can share? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I tried posting the link but Wikipedia has the site on their blacklist, most likely to avoid copyright issues. In any case, you an just go on LibGen site and type the name of the title, however you have already provided a RS alleging BJP-RSS involvement, so I don't have any particular qualms about its inclusion in the info-box, however the source claims that their involvement was alleged (as opposed to the plethora of secondary sources which conclusively implicate Congress in the riots), would you be okay with the addition of "alleged" into the infobox? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Also note as I believe this may be brought up: The source claims 14 FIRs were filed against BJP/RSS leaders, I'm not commenting on whether they were involved or not as they would be beyond my scope of knowledge, but an FIR registration doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion of guilt on their part, as anyone can file a FIR against anyone in India. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

FIRs are by police not anyone. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 08:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

No, an FIR is the equivalent of a police report, it can be filed anyone, particularly the victim of a crime or someone aware of a cognizable offence. Per Legal Services India [27] - Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I think I can find some more sources so let’s wait on adding alleged. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Also note, the source states It is not implausible that BJP-RSS leaders employed their proficiency. (stress on plausible). The book is clearly speaking in theoretical and conjectural terms as opposed to making a factual case against BJP . In essence, the book is saying "It might make sense if BJP and RSS leaders were involved". In my opinion, such wishy-washy languages does not justify its inclusion in the info box (reneging from my earlier position) and is better suited for the body. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW that sight seems to be illegal and have pirated content. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I did a search and a google snippet showed it on page 108 not 109. Try checking that page. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Suthasianhistorian8 CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that conclusively implicate BJP in the riots? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The source that was cited said BJP was involved. You can check it. Also Jaijee page 108.

@Orientls you added BJP’s involvement. Can you chime in and share some sources? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

My comments regarding your arguments are right above you, so I'm a bit confused as to why you're reiterating them. Orientls's source made no mention of this and the second source speaks in theoretical and conjectural terms as opposed to an in depth explication of BJP's supposed role in the riots. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I will bring the quote from Jaijee.

Here are other sources:

Caravan Magazine

Tribune CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Jaijee says, “ Most of the 14 FIRs lodged against the BJP and RSS workers have been registered at the Sriniwaspuri Police” CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 05:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Here is another source

Scroll CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

There are many sources pointing to BJP and RSS being involved. It seems to me that there should be no objection to restoring the information you removed. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 05:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Did the FIRs result in a conviction? Did scholars conclusively ascertain their role in the riots? You have also said [28], so does this not apply here. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That was BLP and I was talking about an individual person not an organisation.

All the sources I have cited quite clearly say that BJP and RSS was involved. There should be no debate on the fact.

Also it seems they were convicted unless I am misunderstanding what the sources say. To quote from the Tribune article I cited, “He said most of these people were arrested and charge-sheeted ”

Jaijee names many lead BJP/RSS men as part of the violence. Such as Ram Kumar Jain “… the election agent of the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee”

Also just because someone wasn’t convicted doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. BLP doesn’t apply here. The article names multiple Congress men as leading violence of whom only one was ever convicted. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 08:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way in your appeal to your ban, which was accepted by @Rosguill, you pledged to not revert anyone who reverts your edits. You have broken that pledge.

I had reverted your edit and pointed you to the talk page discussion to which you hadn’t responded to for a month. A talk page discussion talking about what you removed. A talk page discussion which was quite active when it lasted, and could have been resumed at any time. In my last comment in the discussion I pointed to the correct page for Jaijee. You never replied so I assumed the matter was closed. What I am trying to say is that I am just quite perplexed as to why, you, out of the blue removed all mention of BJP and RSS when there was a discussion which could have been resumed at any time. A discussion which never truly finished. A discussion that you never responded yet you removed, without consensus or any talk, what was the matter of discussion.

Another point is that what you said in the edit summary when you removed mention of BJP and RSS involvement was clearly addressed by me or at least could have been addressed in this discussion. You said, “jaijee makes no mention of this” which I clearly addressed here in my last comment. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Just noting, since I was pinged, that as this was an informal promise as part of a standard offer-unblock, rather than a formal unblock condition, I am not going to be swooping in to respond with sanctions. If there are concerns of disruptive editing, take them to AE or ANI. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn’t suggesting sanctions or anything. I was just making an observation. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted my edit. Feel free to add the Caravan and scroll source if you'd like. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that while I did revert twice instead of my promise of 1RR, it is a general rule of thumb that the person seeking to include content ought to refrain from reverting when concerns are raised over source reliability or misinterpretation per WP:ONUS. Nonethless, I'll try to rectify my lapses and stick to 1RR, but I would also ask that you go over what Wikipedia considers reliable sources, which in my opinion would resolve over 90% of the disagreements between us. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

To clarify on this In my last comment in the discussion I pointed to the correct page for Jaijee. You never replied so I assumed the matter was closed. Jaijee had not stated anything unique to the Routledge source you added in the infobox, essentially both sources stated that FIRs were filed against BJP-RSS leaders. I had already rejected that rationale however writing but an FIR registration doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion of guilt on their part, as anyone can file a FIR against anyone in India., especially considering Hinduta-Sikh dynamics and relations in the past century, it was inexorable that RSS leaders would be accused of atrocities whether they were involved or not. I was under the assumption that you would provide sources that indicted BJP-RSS leaders in a matter of fact way, in no uncertain terms, stating they were involved in the violence, which you had not done in the past month, which is why I reverted you. You just now provided some news article that seem to meet this requirement hence my revert and reinclusion of BJP-RSS in the infobox. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Congress vs Sikhs!

the entire episode was congress leaders taking revenge on Sikhs for indira's death. The whole article is about the same!

Then why did you drag BJP and RSS along with congress in it against Sikhs? There is. Ot a single instance or hint in whole article to tell about it. None of this is hinting of saffron party supporting congress in this henious genocide 203.81.241.148 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Khotestanis have filled this page with falsehoods

It appears that khotestanis have filled this page wirh falsehoods. While everyone acknowledges the incident was a dark spot everyone knows this led by congress leaders and carried out by their goons, however the current khalistani supporters have added BJP and RSS to the list of parties who had nothing to do with this incident. It is also known this is a common khotestani and ISI tactic to recruit more khotestanis since BJP is in power now and enticing hate against BJP and Modi is a good recruitment tool to brainwash uneducated and naive Sikh youth. The references are weak. False and does not connect anyone in the BJP and RSS to this pogrom so if the mods have an iota of self respect stop lying and fix this page. 47.185.211.70 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Replace riots with massacre

103.122.62.96 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please clearly express the change you would like to see (e.g., change sentence X to Y) and please provide reliable sources to support that change. If you are referring to the article title, then see WP:RM. RegentsPark (comment) 16:36, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Figures

@CanadianSingh1469: The cited figures are random and they don't indicate if any research was carried out behind those numbers. Why any weight should be given to the numbers that lack any research or basis? Capitals00 (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

How do you know the number has no research behind it? If a reliable source says 17,000 we add 17,000. The source quire clearly says that 17,000 Sikhs were burned alive. We can’t remove figures from a reliable source just because we think there is no research behind it. If a confirmed academic publisher says it there was probably some research behind it. It isn’t a random number.

@RegentsPark Can you chime in here? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Looks reliable and an over reliance on government sources is never a good idea. Perhaps you could rewrite it as "while estimates from independent sources vary from 8,000 to 17,000". RegentsPark (comment) 16:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

"there was probably some research behind it" that's your assumption. If there was any research then we would know that.

How come there is only 1 source that claims 17,000 figures without providing any details? From where this '17,000' figure came? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

RSS Role in Riots

RSS helped protecting Sikhs during 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots. Sikh intellectual and author of ‘A History of the Sikhs’, Khushwant Singh, credits members of the RSS with helping and protectingSikhs who were being targeted by members of the Congress(I) political party during the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots.

riots Ak6016 (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thoroughly unreliable source. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any data that calls it unreliable? 96.255.235.139 (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2023

Change the title of Sikh riots to Sikh genocide 2607:FEA8:EDF:5DFA:217C:50AD:91CE:84EE (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)