Talk:1984 Anti-Sikh Riots

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup.
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale by the India project. This article was last assessed in October 2006.

	Sikhism Portal This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

---

I've added all the information I could find on the various comssions and committee's. Feel free to re-arrange the images but please don't remove any. Thanks. --Gaurav Arora ^Talk 13:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

---

A lot of the information seems clearly POV anti-congress. Clearly mark out what is established / claimed by GOI, media internal and external. Mark sources, I have flags for citations, where it seems so.

Contents 1 1984 Massacre of the Sikhs 2 Quotes 3 Should these gruesome images appear in an article.. 4 Correct name 5 Great article 6 Incoherent Statements and Inept Title of "Anti-Sikh Riots"

[edit] 1984 Massacre of the Sikhs

PLEASE DO NOT ERASE

The massacre was carried out by non-sikhs including women and children for revenge of the Indian PM and the murder of innocent non-sikhs by Khalistani fundamentalists throughout the 80's including Air India Flight 182^[1] (Indira Gandhi who was assasinated by Beant Singh,Satwant Singh and Kehar Singh. Mobs chanted slogans while murdering as well as raping their women, and burning the Sikhs alive such as "Indira is immortal" and "blood for blood will be revenged." Hindu mobs were able to attack the Sikhs because they had the support from the Indian Government and its been over 20 years since this tragedy occurred and not a single culprit has been brought to justice.Jeev 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT ERASE

[edit] Quotes

I'd appreciate some help with the quotes if anyone can find any. --Gaurav Arora ^Talk 13:45, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Gaurav, not sure if you added the "giant tree falls.." comment, but I thought it was appropriate to point out that the comment was not made during the riots or any time soon after. All said and done, it isn't even clear as to what was the context in which he said it - the only thing known is that he made such a comment while addressing a public rally at boat club in Delhi a year or so later. My point is that the timing of the statement is of significance, the insenstitivity of the statement still holds!

Fuzzy numbers, the quote was added by me. Could you please cite some sources to support your claim that the comment was made a year later.Please refer to the following sites.

[1] You can find At the backdrop is of course then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi's famous utterance a day after his mother's death: When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake.
[2] Madhavan titled his story When Big Trees Fall, an allusion to the infamous statement uttered by Rajiv Gandhi, then India's prime minister ('When a big tree falls, the earth is bound to shake') on November 1, 1984, the day after his mother Indira Gandhi was assassinated.Gaurav1146 07:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

On Indira Gandhi's birth anniversary - which would be Nov 19th, about two weeks after the riots [3]. This isn't exactly a very good website, but search on "boat club when a giant tree falls" and you will find numerous links (I was under the incorrect impression that he said so at her death anniversary). Still, it was a few days after the riots, not Nov 1 itself. He didn't give any speeches or take part in any rallies before the funeral on Nov 4th, it really wasn't possible. Fuzzy numbers 15:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

On a separate note, you should add the Indian Express reporter's account of block 32, Trilokpuri. Don't recall the name of the reporter, but it was the most stunning piece of journalism you would ever come across. Fuzzy numbers 15:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Here is Rahul Bedi's account as it appeared in Indian Express on Nov 2, 1984 : [4]. This is the same Rahul Bedi who was also very prominent in reporting the Gujarat pograms of 2002. The guy deserves a wikipedia page! Fuzzy numbers 17:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Should these gruesome images appear in an article..

I found some of the images quite disturbing... Shoudlnt they be placed in external source rather than the main article.. atleast u can put a warning sign there.

• Look at Pubic Hair. Wikipedia doesn't censor content. I understand what you're saying but there isn't any message I can put there. :-/ --Gaurav Arora ^Talk 20:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, user won't make the effort to visit an external source, thus limiting the utility of the article--The world salutes the Rising Star...Try to be One 13:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This was a white blood bath by the congress because police was also involved.Without the support of government its not possible to conduct such a massacre.This is a type of a worst politics,such type of peoples should never be elected,The peoples who are voting them and re-electing them again are the biggest fools because these type of politicians have no moral values and can kill them(voters) also in future just for the sake of their politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.208.250.164 (talk) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Correct name

I've undone the page move that was without consensus, but is the correct title capitalized or not? More articles link to either 1984 Anti-Sikh riots or 1984 Anti-Sikh Pogroms. Please provide evidence for which is the more common and accurate term. And please never move an article with a significant history without consensus. Thanks all - Taxman ^Talk 16:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is not required when something is factually incorrect. Here is the definition of "riot" according to the American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com)

1. a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.

2. Law. a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.

3. violent or wild disorder or confusion.

4. a brilliant display: a riot of color.

5. something or someone hilariously funny: You were a riot at the party.

6. unrestrained revelry.

7. an unbridled outbreak, as of emotions, passions, etc.

8. Archaic. loose, wanton living; profligacy.

And here is the definition of a "pogrom"

"An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group..."

Now tell me how was this a riot? It was a pogrom that was well organized and officially encouraged by the minions of the Congress.

If you are a person of integrity, you should not follow the govenment sponsored rhetoric. Let's call a spade a spade. Zafarnamah 17:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well actually how this works is consensus is still required. We have policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V that help make resolving issues like this simple. We look at what reliable sources say about the subject and the argument with the best sources rules the day. You've provided dictionary definitions of the words but no evidence that the situation meets the definition. The article has no cited facts, it could be all made up original research. After some time to sort out the evidence, then a decision can be made. But just continually reverting does no good. I have no opinion on what way it should go, but you haven't provided enough evidence to support your position yet. If you do and no one responds then the move can proceed. - Taxman ^Talk 18:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on people, can we get something, anything for some actual evidence of what is the best name? Zafarnamah has at least made an attempt to provide minimal evidence. I see both uses, though obviously riots comes up more in google. However, even adjusting for searching for the whole phrase the term using riots comes up about 40 times more. Here the BBC uses riots, but discusses some evidence for Congress Party involvement. [http://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050913/main5.htm Here is a discussion of settlement paid and refers to them as riots. To me NPOV would say you couldn't refer to them as pogroms in the title and lead unless you could show prevailing opinion is that they were in fact pogroms. Without that evidence the position that they are pogroms should be covered in an appropriate section. That then leaves the article title as neutral as possible, but allows for discussion that it was in fact pogroms. - Taxman ^Talk 18:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

"...To me NPOV would say you couldn't refer to them as pogroms in the title and lead unless you could show prevailing opinion is that they were in fact pogroms...". I agree with that user:Taxman. I am copying here the definition of pogrom here, "...officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority...". There is little doubt that some Congress leaders were involved but there is no evidence of any "official encouragement". Please also note that there has been a heated debate on this on the Khalistan and most users have always reverted references to "Pogroms". Hope that clarifies. Syiem 22:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The current name "Anti-Sikh Riots" is factually incorrect; a riot involves attacks from both sides and is an unplanned/non-methodical outbreak. In no way can this event be classified as a riot as the Sikhs were methodologically targeted with the support from the Government machinery. The Sikh businesses, houses, places of worship were burned down and not a single house, business or place of worship of the attacking community was burned in this event. Sikhs along with their kids were burned alive and left on the street for the street dogs to eat (there are real pictures that can be produced for this). The attackers carried iron-rods of uniform size, they had been supplied with oil to burn and were mobilized into the Sikh areas. The police dispersed the Sikhs who collected in groups, so that they may not be able to defend themselves. The same police became a mute spectator when Sikhs were singled out and beaten to death and burned on the street by the crowds. Talking about consensus on the name to be used, I start wondering how effective it would be? Sikhs only constitute ~ 1.8% of the Indian population and further only a few percentage of them actually have the privilege of freeing themselves from propaganda and controlled press in India. How many votes will be there in the favor of "Anti Sikh Pogroms" in such a situation? As wikipedia editors, we should strive for right information and save wikipedia from becoming a propaganda platform. Regards, ---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 20:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great article

Its quite encyclopedic. Might I request a section perhaps on the political fallout (of the attacks not the report), including Congress response, perhaps the commie, and the BJP. A.B. Vajpayee supported the Sikhs, as did most of the Sangh [5].Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incoherent Statements and Inept Title of "Anti-Sikh Riots"

Quote"This claim can be supported by the fact that Hindu-Sikh communal riots have been rare prior to the 1984 riots and Hindus and Sikhs often intermingled, including having Hindus and Sikhs in the same family." The statement is a POV. There have been muslims and sikhs and christians and sikhs also in same families.

The writer seems to be ignorant about the Sikhs and the slaughter unleashed on the Sikhs by labelling the article as "Anti-Sikh Riots". In a riot both sides attack each other but the attacks of sikhs were sponsored by the then Government of Rajiv Gandhi and hence were state sponsored carnage/genocide.

See above posts for discussion regarding this misconception.Hkelkar 02:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)