Talk:Operation Blue Star

Controversy

I would like to invite the editors and contributors of the Op. Blue Star article to discuss on the need of having a section on controversy about excessive use of fire power by the army with a rejoinder about the peaceful manner in which a seige was effective in Operation Black Thunder to flush out terrorist in the same location a few years later. LegalEagle 03:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unethical use of references

Moved the following misleading claim here:
"On February 1, 1984, Sant Harchand Singh Longowal claimed that Bhindranwale had suggested to him that motor cycles and arms should be purchased on a mass scale for killing members of a 'particular community'"
The wikipedia contributer of above line has put these words in the mouth of Ranbir S. Sandhu by using his work "Life, Mission and Martyrdom" as a citation for the above claim.

1. In the reference provided "Life, Mission and Martyrdom" (author: Ranbir S. Sandhu), the author does not claim what has been claimed by wikipedia contributor of the above lines. In fact, the authors claim is exactly reverse of the view for which his name is being used here on wikipedia article.
2. Anybody who understands English can very well understand the authors (Ranbir S. Sandhu) view. Hence, the above attempt of using the author to portray the POV of someone else is highly unethical.

Please explain the unethical use of author's name. ---- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

added the full version. The previous contributor added only half and tried to mislead.I think it is neutral now.Ajjay (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

More Balance...

This article no matter how it is written will not make everybody happy. However, it is clearly biased against the Gov't of India's position on the matter. I have no problem if the Sikh version of events is put forward but there should also be a Gov't of India version of events. Being an encyclopedia Wikipedia should not be a forum but an educational source, that being said, showing both viewpoints would make sense, Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.204.144 (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

the majority of refrences that show govt. in poor light are from independant journlists/historians. if you think you can do better, please do.ThanksAjjay (talk) 14:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:months before the operation golden temple was attacked to find Saint Jarnail Singh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.151.58 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Looting of Sikh Relics by the Indian Army

The Sikh Reference Library was set on fire during the Operation and Army confiscated lot of Sikh relics. The Indian Government has accepted that the army was involved in the confiscation of relics. It should be mentioned in the article.[1][2] Princhest(talk) 22:56 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Military Bias on Human Devastation

There should be a detail section on the human devastation caused by the Operation. Statements by the human rights groups and eyewitnesses are missing from the article. There were thousands of pilgrims inside the Darbar Sahib on day of Martyrdom and conservative estimates have put the number to 5000-9000. Several human rights groups such as citizens For Democracy and other journalists have witnessed Sikh dead bodies being thrown in dump trucks and illegally creamated by the army. Presenting the verdict of an attacker on victims is a POV. We need unbiased sources to confirm it. I am presenting some of the quotes and ask others to keep them adding to understand the Operation better

"The whole of Punjab and especially the Golden Temple Complex, was turned into a murderous mouse trap from where people could neither escape nor could they seek succor of any kind.The way the dead bodies were disposed off adds to the suspicions regarding the number and nature of the casualties...The bodies of the victims of military operation in Punjab were unceremoniously destroyed without any attempt to identify them and hand them over to their relatives.So even the courtesy and honor customarily shown to the dead soldiers of the enemy was not shown to our dead countrymen, since those killing them were our own soldiers. Because the government had decided to exterminate these victims physically they ceased to exist as persons deserving any honor of human dignity. We lack even the civility of the British imperialists, who after the Jalianwala blood bath instituted the Hunter Commission to make a thorough enquiry into the events. The government, after the operation, on the other hand, did every thing in its power to cover up the excesses of the army action.The most disturbing thing about the entire operation was that a whole mass of men, women, and children were ordered to be killed merely on the suspicion that some terrorists were operating from the Golden Temple and other gurdwaras. There had been no judicial verdict of guilt against definite individuals who had been taking shelter in the Golden Temple." (CKC Reddy, et al, Army Action in Punjab: Prelude & Aftermath, New Delhi: Samata Era Publication, 1984, pp. 46-48)

"An undeclared, unilateral ruthless war _ against hundred of innocent defenceless men and women in far-away tiny villages of Punjab from where their voices do not reach the rest of India.In the name of curbing terrorism, unabashed state terrorism has been unleashed on the Sikhs branding them as criminals, arbitrary arrests and McCarthy style witch-hunt, sadistic torture...shooting down of young men in false encounters are common occurrences; even village women are not spared, they are being harassed and beaten up, dishonored and taken away to Police Stations or to unknown destinations.The eye witnesses witnessed the use of gas by the Army, the pile of dead bodies on the `Parikarma,' the arrival of tanks which some of them thought were the ambulances, the hovering of helicopter at night, throwing their search light on targets which were bombed, the wanton destruction of the Akal Takht (the Eternal Throne), the Research Library and the Museum.Today, it is the State itself which openly indulges not only in murder and assault but also in inhuman torture, molestation of women...and false encounters leading to gruesome death.Our visit was almost like lifting the corner of a veil to discover a face - an amazing face full of conflicting emotions, suffering yet defiant, anguished yet challenging, tortured yet proud." (Judge V M Tarkunde, et al, Oppression in Punjab: Report to the Nation, New Delhi: Citizens for Democracy, 1985, pp. 8-10, 18-19)

"The pattern in each village appears to be the same. The Army moves in during the early evening, cordons a village, and announces over loudspeakers that everyone must come out. All males between the ages of 15 and 35 are trussed and blindfolded, then taken away.Thousands have disappeared in the Punjab since the Army Operation began. The government has provided no lists of names; families don't know if sons and husbands are arrested, underground or dead." (Mary Anne Weaver, The Christian Science Monitor, October 15, 1984)

"On the strength of constitutional features, India claims to be the largest functional democracy in the world where wide-spread human rights abuses, systematic persecution of estranged communities and suppression of political dissent cannot occur. However, the experiences of the Sikhs in Punjab show that as a demonised community targeted for abuse by the authorities, they had no protection from the leaders of the supposedly independent institutions, including the judiciary, either in shielding their fundamental rights against imminent violations or in obtaining acknowledgement and legal restitution of wrongs. Freedom of discourse remained an empty promise which even the higher judiciary joined the chorus to turn the page and obliterate the victims' memory on the grounds that a public discussion and scrutiny focusing on past abuses and the role of institutions would undermine the interests of peace and social order." (Ram Narayan Kumar, et al, Reduced to Ashes (Volume One), Asia Forum for Human Rights, Kathmandu, Nepal, May 2003, pp. 75)

Princhest(talk) 23:16 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Cruelty by the Operation Bluestar

The article is still carries a lot of Indian military POV for the Operation as it has NO mention about the cruelty of the Operation. Any sources on the cruelty inflicted on the pilgrims by the Indian Army? Here is an exercept from peer-reviewed Harvard Human Rights Journal.

Prelude to the Pogroms: Operation Blue Star [3]

Constituting sixty percent of the population in the state of Punjab and two percent of the population overall, Sikhs have had a troubled relationship with the national government since Independence, primarily due to policies and decisions that Sikhs have perceived as discriminatory. In the late 1970s, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale tapped into Sikh discontent and organized a separatist movement to fight the “Hindu conspiracy” against Sikhs. In 1982, Bhindranwale moved his headquarters into the Golden Temple Complex, the holiest place of worship in Sikhism. He remained there until June 5, 1984, when Prime Minister Indira Gandhi sent the Indian army into the temple complex to capture Bhindranwale in a mission called “Operation Blue Star.” According to the Indian government, the Operation resulted in 83 army casualties and 493 civilian deaths.[8] In addition, the fighting destroyed the main administrative building and Golden Temple library, which contained original copies of Sikhism’s most sacred texts. Bhindranwale and almost all of his top aides were killed.

Whether Bhindranwale supporters or not, Sikhs were shocked by the cruelty of the Operation, particularly because the Indian government carried it out during the week on which one of the holiest days of the Sikh calendar falls (the anniversary of the martyrdom of the fifth Guru). At the time, 3680 pilgrims were staying in the hostel inside the Golden Temple complex, leading scholars to question the accuracy of the government’s estimated death toll. According to eyewitness accounts, over 10,000 pilgrims and 1300 workers were unable to flee the complex before the attack.

Princhest(talk) 13:47 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cruelity section deletion by LegalEagle

To neglect documented evidence of cruelty on Sikh pilgrims is purposeful extension of a POV. Cruelty is NOT criticism and can't be covered under the criticism section. It is almost like saying Hitler is criticized for the Holocaust. There is serious evidence of cruelity inflicted by the Indian Army against the Sikh pilgrims documented above. I have no problem in posting people who have "criticized" the opertion as a mistake but that has nothing to do with the allegations of cruelity.

LegalEagle certainly has a bias to promote the position of the Indian Amry and its sham justification for it. I have posted the above references depicting cruelity on the pilgrims by the Indian Army since the last couple of months and LegalEagel never bothered to discuss it,now suddenly when it seems that nobody has the problem, LegalEagle has a problem? Princhest(talk) 11:24 4 November 2008 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, please do not delete sourced information. The article was a total Indian Army POV and it needs correct information to improve the standard. There is not a single question on cruelty of Army on civilians in this operation because there are several real photographs of the operation showing elderly men made to sit on the floor with the hands tied behind their backs, the army taking pictures of each other in front of dead bodies and demolished Akal Takhat, dragging dead bodies on the floor and the dead body of Bangladesh war hero General Subegh Singh lying with his legs tied with a rope. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 19:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to admit that I had been negligent to not comment on the postings 'depicting cruelty on the pilgrims' in the talk page earlier, but I would like to assert that it does not in any way diminish my option as an editor to delete 'objectionable' portions when they make way to the article mainspace. Further (now that I have checked the talk page) I failed to find any positive approval to the allegation section in the talk page discussion, thus a mere silence by editors has been wrongly construed by Princhest as approval as he has tried to justify by stating that 'nobody has the problem'.

Now let me justify as to why I classify the Princhest's edits 'objectionable' and why I have a 'problem'.

• The section has been titled very cunningly as 'Allegations of Cruelty on the Indian Army', so that in case later the section is found to be pov then the editors would have a defense that they had always mentioned that these are referenced allegations.
• The first line of the 'allegation' section begins with 'The Sikh Reference Library was set on fire during the Operation', the reference provides (an article from Tribune, a respected newspaper) 'Even after a lapse of nearly two decades, what exactly happed to the Sikh Reference Library is not clear', yet the framing of the sentence is such that the reader would associate the fire in the library as an act alleged to be done by the Indian Army. This very first line shows the malafide intent with which editors have been trying to manipulate a balanced article into a pov fest.
• The second para consists of grand declaration that 'Several human rights groups such as Citizens For Democracy and other journalists have witnessed Sikh dead bodies being thrown in dump trucks and illegally cremated by the Indian Army.' I fail to understand that how a HR group may witness bodies being cremated and also other journalists as mentioned could be almost a copybook example of weasel word. Which journalist would be the first question which would come to the mind of any neutral reader, yet Princhest has conveniently failed to spot the defect.
• The main pillar on which wiki is founded is npov which rests on neutrality and verifiability. The official policy of wiki states 'verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it'. Thus when Roadahead questions my decision to delete sourced information, I have only one reply that the sourced information was of such manner to show a single opinion and not a balanced view, we are here to produce a work which would not have our own beliefs but non partisan view backed by references. The article is on op blue star, and it has three sections which would like to convey same or similar sentiments 'Choice of time to attack by Government', 'Criticism of the operation', 'Allegations of Cruelty on the Indian Army'. Allegation of cruelty can very well be accomodated within criticism section by stating that the operation has been criticised for violating HR by such and such authors etc. Also by comparing blue star with holocaust the editor is merely trying to trade in rhetoric without any actual merit. This is not an article on criticism of blue star. Earlier before edits by princhest, the article had a balanced criticism where allegations of HR violation was documented but by the slide of verifiable pov sources, princhest has tried to throw npov elements of wiki to wind and start his own brand of bias.

As for Roadahead I would just like to comment that he has a long history of siding with pro khalistani ideals, so it is expected that he would act with zeal to include changes which show alleged violation of HR. Thus although I am leaving with a semblence of justification for my earlier act of deleting the section. I would like to request princhest and other interested editors to atleast give a thought to the points that I have raised and consider as to whether npov credentials of the article would have been better upheld if the allegation section could be brought within criticism section and shortened a bit. LegalEagle (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It all depends what you mean by "balanced". If you mean that your job is to suggest opposite to what is being suggested by the sourced evidence, and that too just for the sake of it- then it is your bias against the evidence.

Now, I can see and understand your point that looking at the evidence of Operation Blue Star one cant keep himself off from questioning the intention of the Operation at the first place. But, our job here is not to suggest otherwise if the evidence speaks for itself. If it is what you mean by “balance” then it has an inherent bias in it.

There are three sides to this article, one is the justification by the Indian Government for its action, second is the criticism by insiders and political commentators, and the last is the allegations by eye-witnesses. I find it really astonshing to see it coming from a legal guy to consider an allegation same as criticism? I mean when we allege a crime, we allege it not criticize it. Your point seems to ignore the allegations by ignoring them as "allegations".

Therefore, your first point is very invalid since burning of library is an allegation by SGPC, not criticism and other eye-witnesses such as Human rights reporters, as mentioned. It is therefore listed under the allegation section.

Lastly, raising Khalistan bogey to eliminate and choke others is no way a justification of your point. It is not reason but a desperate call to condemnation. I find it really insecure on part of reasonable people to really evoke Khalistan bogey after the evidence is left to speak for itself. The main introductory and the set-up points in the article are heavily sourced on Indian government’s justification and ignore huge part of allegations which when presented would make the article way more balanced.Princhest(talk) 18:48 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Your observation that there are three sides to this article is a bit too focussed on a particular side. The article is on Operation Blue Star, so first give justification (as rightly pointed out by you), secondly give particulars about the operation and finally give the criticisms where allegation of HR violation are to be tabulated, one may give one quote by a renowned HR scholar or any other reputable and verifiable source and then mention that other scholars have also reached similar conclusion and give references. Also on your view that 'allegation' and 'criticism' are different, we need to appreciate that allegations are one form of criticism whereby the proponents of the allegation try to show that something has or has not taken place, in this particular case the allegation of cruelty are a tactic criticism of the excesses by indian army. Looking at all the evidence and sources put forward by you and many other reputable sources on the net it is quite correct to come to a conclusion that there are a 'basis' of alleging that army had crossed its mandate, but again this can well be accomodated within the criticism section and does not need in my view a seperate section in itself. Thus to bury the article in an avalanche of allegation and criticism from reputed source is not going to make the article look very balanced and would rather seem that article is biased to criticism, thus we have to find the right mixture of criticism and content only then we can have a proper npov wiki standard article. The allegation of SPGC on library burning can well be incorporated in criticism as: 'There has also been several allegation of high handedness by Indian Army during the operation, SPGC criticises Indian Army by alleging that they had burned the SPGC library which contained many rare manuscripts related to Sikhism etc. (and give a reference)' This can very well be a working model for amalgamating the three distinct section on criticism, allegation etc. And to conclude I wouldnt have raised the khalistan 'bogey' if you hadnt recoursed to 'holocaust rhetoric'. LegalEagle (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I think your assertion is too focused to undermine an allegation of crime as an criticism of Operation. Criticism is a sense of disagreement, however, an allegation of crime is NOT a sense of disagreement but condemnation. Hence, allegations of crimes are not a criticism of Operation. Lets not mince the semantics here. Regards. Princhest(talk) 21:18 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems we have reached a deadlock (as i still, despite your persuasive arguement feel that a seperate section on allegation, criticism, choice of attack time would make the article too slant; and strongly believe that all these sections can be merged into one criticism section; and anyway allegation is part of criticism as one may criticise the operation by stating that there were strong 'allegations of cruelty' backed by sources). We can either solve it by asking other editors to pitch in with their comments or ask some experienced administrators give a binding mediatory solution. As for me I would like administrators take a call. Do let me know your opinion soon. LegalEagle (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

An Accusation is not criticism. The HR groups,eyewitnesses, SGPC and other Sikh sources etc accused the Indian Army for massacre, NOT criticized the Indian Army. Hence the SGPC accused the Army for allegedly burning down the library. I believe you are purposefully trying to undermine the obvious just for the sake for it, and it is a delibrate attempt to not present the accusations in the right way to balance the article. The accusations involved should be presented as accusations. Please prove where have accusations been presented as "criticism" in history, encyclopedic writting, or as synonym for criticism. I have no qualms about getting reasonable editors or admin involve here. Princhest(talk) 10:58 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I have requested few administrators to look into the issue and give a mediated solution, and I still hold that Accusation can very well be part of Criticism. LegalEagle (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. I gave you an opportunity to show some reasonable sources where accusation of massacre and destruction have been considered criticisms. Even the Webster dictionary doesn't consider an accusation a criticism. Princhest(talk) 21:38 6 November 2008 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, I do not appreciate your crying wolf and personal attack on me here. You said, "As for Roadahead I would just like to comment that he has a long history of siding with pro khalistani ideals, so it is expected that he would act with zeal to include changes which show alleged violation of HR". What is your problem with addition of information? Anybody who adds information on the high handedness against the Sikhs becomes "pro-Khalistani"? Using your same logic, and seeing your editing patterns on Wikipedia, should we now say that you are a RAW or Indian Govt. Agent? Doesn't make sense right?. Hence, it will be appreciated if you can leave prejudices aside and take part in constructive editing. Also, what do you mean by continually agruing about including cursory lines into "Criticism" section and not including army inhuman treatment under different section? This is a POV propaganda of trying to diffuse the truth, lets call the spade a spade. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 05:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I was making an offhanded comment, I apologise if I have hurt your feelings, but I must say that some of your edits may not be in full compliance with the wiki npov strictures. Anyway to respond to your accusation of pov propaganda to diffuse truth, I would like you to read my comments carefully, I never wanted deletion of information that has been well researched and collected by Princhest, what I stated is that these allegations can very well be incorporated within criticism section as otherwise the article would seem to have three independent sections touting information on similar vein and would no doubt lead to a casual reader mark the article as pov. LegalEagle (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to weigh in. The section on criticism needs to be there to balance the text. My first question is how reliable are the sources? My second question are there multiple independent third party accounts of the same allegations. For sensitive sections one source is not enough. It has to be neutral and backed by several sources. Can the authors do this? =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, the sources are reliable. I'll work on adding independent third party accounts of same allegations as time permits. There are several different accounts of army high handedness in this operation. I also suggest we add the reactions/statements of top Indian politicians at that time. Regards,--RoadAhead ^Discuss 14:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi All, I think this http://sikhcentre.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/comment-in-year-2000-on-operation-bluestar/ is an interesting article on the whole sorry episode of Operation Bluestar. Bluestar was in my opinion a massive mistake by the then Indian Government. The untold story is that most Hindu's were outraged by the entire episode. The fact that Bhindranwala had been placed in power by Sanjay Ghandhi is skated over. General Sinha's memoirs heavily criticised the whole episode and the events that led up to this. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 15:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, There is no reason to question the reliability of the Harvard Human Rights Journal and their sources of evidence, and others such the Tribune, Chandigarh , BBC News and work of prominent Anthropologist and Human rights activists. We can’t ignore the accusations that have come against the Indian Army in this article. Eyewitness accounts and Mccarthy style disappearances have been covered by reliable media sources such as BBC. [[4]]. Prominent human rights activists and eye-witnesses accuse that the Operation was undeclared and unwarned. This is now accepted by the Brig Rao who executed the Operation..[[5]]]

Princhest talk) 10:38 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Picture Proof - 1.: Google search shows an original picture shows Indian Army posing with the dead-body of General (AVSM, PVSM) Shabeg Singh whose legs are clearly visible to have been tied with a rope in the picture.
Picture Proof - 2: Sikh Museum can be seen riddled with bullets in this picture. Later, it was set on fire. Many precious books from the museum are still not returned to the Sikhs.
Picture Proof -3 (same image in color): The white marble floor of Golden Temple shows the drag marks of blood from dragged dead bodies and dead bodies lying on floor. Behind the varandah, one can see a soldier dragging a dead body by its leg. For weeks nobody other then army was allowed to enter the Golden Temple complex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadahead (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a small observation that the title of the disputed section is presently 'Allegations of Cruelty on the Indian Army', cruelty itself is a pov and pending resolution to the question as to the necessity of the section itself, it is necessary to atleast change the section title to 'Allegation of HR violation on Indian Army' as HR violation would seem a more npov term than cruelty. Any thoughts LegalEagle (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't hear your response yet from the previous issue you were raising. But, if you think you want to move further from the "Accusation" issue that we were discussing, I am open to that. Princhest talk) 11:41 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well as I have stated before the 'allegation of cruelty ' can very well be accomodated as a criticism to the operation, and merely because the facts are verifiable and come from reputed source does not mean that they do not provide a 'viewpoint' or in plain language may be 'prone to bias'. Even then, they can be cited and used but one has to see that npov is always maintained as it is the core policy of Wikipedia [6]. By having three different sections which alleges, accuses, criticises the govt handling of the operation would be a overkill and to any rational reader would seem to be slanted/pov pushing in a way. I never dispute the 'verifiable facts' that you are bringing forward or contributing as an editor I only believe that the accusaction section does not merit to be a stand alone section, needs to be toned down from direct accusatory note, give one quote and cite all other references and bring it within the overarching criticism section. I have stated the same proposition in so many words on previous occasion also, and there seems to be a deadlock, I had sounded several administrators and many newly elected ones also in a hope that they could come and find a mutually acceptable and consensual solution, however it seems till now that we have got very few responses. So we would wait for more more responses and try and find common ground if possible. LegalEagle (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Accusations are relevant and they should be expanded. Previous Wiki articles have elaborated on the Accusations and Allegations for balancing the articles.Example:[[7]][[8]]There actually should be four sections to this article: Background to the Operation, Precursor/Justification of the Operation, The Operation Timeline, The Outcome and Consequences of the Operation. All of these should have subsections to include necessary and relevant information. This would have more ability to write a balanced article that covers necessary information from more sides.The current article concentrates too much on the time line than other aspects of the Operation. Princhest talk) 21:50 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not get into the debate as to whether citing all references as quotes on accusation is relevant or not or whether there is a need to be expanded. If you feel it is then you can do so in a seperate fork and tentatively title it as 'Allegations of HR violation by Indian Army in Operation Blue Star', however it will surely be tried by afc, if you can prove that the article is needed in wiki i.e it is notable enough then there is high chance that the article may be retained. However any expansion of 'accusation of cruelty' in the op blue star article would make an already slant article into a further disbalanced one. To finish I would give a gist of statistics on word counts (approx) in the article and section wise breakup. The article consists of 3800 words (approx); the lead section contains around 180 words; precursor to operation is around 900 words; timeline is described in 600 words (approx); aftermath, criticism, allegation of cruelty, criticism on choice of time of attack etc. (i.e. basically criticism of operation) make up the rest 2000 word (approx); Previous to your addition of allegation of cruelty section the criticism section contained around 1500 words; thus earlier the page devoted 50% to criticism while now it devotes around 55%; yet you believe that the section needs to be increased expanded; I regret to say that your actions are hardly going to present a npov stand on the issue; and your allegation that the article devotes much to timeline or actual operation is not factually sound. LegalEagle (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The article provides very less information on the background and the consequences. The Punjab river waters dispute and demand for the Anandpur Sahib Resolution are not mentioned. Secondly, the imposition of President's rule in Punjab and implementation of Special Powers Act has no information either in the time-line section. The article gives a POV impression to support the Indian position that Bhindranwale was in Golden Temple without giving any valid background to what were the consequences of President's rule Princhest (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I've been asked to offer an independent third opinion. I'll restrict my comments mainly to the title of the section - Allegations of Cruelty on the Indian Army. I find this title unsatisfactory in several respects. Firstly, these allegations are themselves criticism of the operation, and though more peripheral, should not be separated from the criticism. Secondly, the term cruelty is a violation of NPOV. It is apparently the Wikipedia author's view that the actions constitute cruelty - otherwise each and every referenced claim in the section should specifically mention the word cruelty. For example, the deaths and killings by crossfire could not be considered cruelty in any usual sense of the word, and I doubt any reliable source considers them as such. Thirdly, the title appears to be poor grammar - the section is about allegations of cruelty by the army, not about the allegations themselves. I hold no view on whether all the material is balanced or should be included at all, though I doubt that its complete removal, where adequately sourced, is warranted. I would suggest that effort is directed at incorporating all the criticisms and allegations into one criticism section with a small number of topical sub-headings. For example the physical and cultural impacts (intended or otherwise) seem to me worthy of their own sections. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also been asked to comment on this dispute. I agree with zzuuzz's comment about the title, it is obviously a violation of NPOV; we shouldn't use inflammatory language about one side of the issue. Zzuuzz is also correct to state that it should not be separate from the criticism section, as it is . As Nichalp pointed out above, there needs to be a lot more sources for the information contained in the cruelty section. Some paragraphs don't have a single source, and several direct quotations don't have sources either (i.e., the comment by Joyce Pettigrew). The section as a whole has quite a few grammatical problems, which is likely a result of the authors not being native English speakers. Also, the paragraphs for each person need to make it clear when direct quotations are being used, and if they aren't direct quotations, the rhetoric needs to be toned down a lot (i.e., if Ruddy didn't actually say "a murderous mouse trap", we shouldn't either.) LegalEagle does make some very good points in his first comment in this thread. For the "Several human rights groups such as Citizens For Democracy and other journalists" line: you need to state exactly who has made the comments, and not include vague "other journalist" phrasing. Also, lines that are sourced should represent what the source is saying, not one or two cherrypicked lines that support a POV. As for using photographs as sources, I don't know that has any leg to stand on, policy-wise; WP:RS certainly doesn't mention anything about using images of any kind. Also, there is the issue of photograph manipulation which is a further strike against using photographs as sources.

For the tldr answer, yes, a portion of the content should remain, merged into the criticism section, and more heavily sourced. It also requires a great deal of clean-up to be within Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Parsecboy and zzuuzz. The issue of photograph manipulation can be addressed by including the pictures from the sources published when photograph manipulation was not even known to exist, much far less in a developing world. Also it can be addressed by including pictures from multiple sources. The points you both have input can be addressed very well. Let's all work together to add reliable sources and improve upon the language to make it NPOV. However, it should be noted that it cuts both ways; much of the existing language was also tilted towards Indian Army and Govt POV so that will change as well. I've no problem in improving on the language of the content that Princhest added and also including more references and perhaps sticking strictly to the MLA citation format. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 19:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, photo manipulation is as old as at least the 1930s, if not earlier, as Image:Voroshilov, Molotov, Stalin, with Nikolai Yezhov.jpg proves. Those editors who have the print sources, for Reddy's and Tarkunde's statements, the CSM, etc. will need to clean those sections up. If some of the text is direct quotes, we'll need quotation marks and citations after each quote, to ensure that it's clear to the reader where they came from. As a side note, it might be a good idea to archive this talk page, as it's getting fairly long (over 120kb). Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Archived part of talk page. LegalEagle (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but what I mentioned was 2 fold - first, less technologically advanced areas did not have privileges to morph or edit pics like that and if the source was published long time ago, it further eliminates that chance. Second, if we can find the same picture in different contemporary sources, it almost certain the picture is genuine. Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. However, I still haven't received a response from respected admins that how are allegations criticisms? I propose to include criticisms under the Allegations section. We can have one section of Allegations covering criticisms. I have also posted above references pertaining to Lebanon War [[9]]where criticism and allegations are described under Allegations. We can title it as "Allegations of Human Rights Violations against Indian Army". Thanks Princhest (talk) 17:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

First I would like to thank you for favorably considering my earlier opinion for changing the section title to 'allegations of HR violation' rather than use the pov term 'cruelty'. However I strongly disagree with your suggestion about bringing criticism under allegation. Certain criticism like high civilian casualty due to choice of time of attack can hardly be categorised as an allegation but reverse can be true for example, allegation of improper disposal of bodies and thereby violating HR can add to the criticism of the operation. Thus allegation should form a sub-section and go under the overarching criticism section rather than the other way round. LegalEagle (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm leaning more towards Princhest's idea of having something like "Allegations" sections and including subsections. Having "Criticism" section and including "allegations" into sub-sections does not add up. "Somebody murdered somebody" is an allegation and including it in "criticism" would be POV because criticism is not as intense opposition as allegation is. For example, lets think how many people were jailed when criticism against them was found true as comapred to number of people jailed when allegations were found true? Where there are allegations against the attack lets call them allegations and stay away from adding our own POV by diffusing allegations by calling them "criticism". Criticism can include army/government's choice of day to attack, use of heavy tank, letting situation to escalate etc. Further, I suggest adding suggestions given to Indian Govt. prior to attack by various individuals like Harchand Singh Longowal etc.--RoadAhead ^Discuss 00:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello all, thanks to the administrators and other editors who have contributed to the discussion here. I have tried to draft a criticism and aftermath section based on my perception and suggestions made by parsec and zzuuzz here, please do not change it, rather I would invite criticism/suggestion/recommendation to improve it and only if we reach a consensus would it replace the corresponding section in the main article. I believe this would help in not fragmenting the discussion. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is POV to consider an allegation of crimes as criticism especially when it comes to the accusations of firing at civilians is involved. I have posted how accusations are NOT criticisms and have posted sources from Wiki articles that have considered accusation as allegations and NOT criticism. I request the admins to go over this discussion again as they have not responded to the specific points raised here. The Indian Army Brig has been questioned in court as to why he “effectively’ fired at civilians and Brig Rao, in question accepted that Army fired at civilians as he was following "orders from above".This is NOT cross-fire and the Brig also doesn't see it that way. It is fallacious attempt to try to undermine the allegations of crimes by calling them "criticism".[[10]]Princhest (talk) 9:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

A perusal of our respective standpoints show that there is little scope of consensual agreement in the matter of section on alleged cruelty. So i would request you to kindly reply asap to Nichalp's proposal on mediation. LegalEagle (talk) 05:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• I was asked a while back for my opinion as well. This was solicited by Legaleagle, whom as far as I know I have never encountered before anywhere. To disclose my biases or lack thereof, I am an American lawyer of European descent with no connections to India or to Sikhs that I am aware of. I generally agree with zzuuzz and parsecboy. The word "cruelty" in a heading is not good; if a separate section is needed "allegations of human rights violations" would be a better heading I think - so I agree with that suggestion and it should be at most a subheading of the criticisms section. The separate section on timing seems odd and increases the overall pov, it should probably be included in the criticisms section as well and I doubt it even rates it's own subheading. I am not sure that criticisms is the best word; however, allegations of human rights violations and allegations of crimes are criticisms in the context described here. We hear that an official has unlawfully imprisoned members of a certain racial group and we say "that's a violation of their human rights!" - what are we doing? We are both criticizing and alleging a human rights violation (and in many countries a crime) or for another example, there are many criticisms of the detainee holding facility at Gitmo, the fact that most of them involve violations of international norms doesn't mean they aren't criticisms. I agree that criticism is both a weak word and a weasily one, but that doesn't mean that two sections need to exist, we just need a better word. I think the proposed re-write has a better and less POV organization, I have not reviewed it's content nor compared it to the current version so I can't comment on that.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With the mediation proceedings apparently stalled I would request editors to consider the controversy draft section proposed by me and please give your inputs within a reasonable timeframe. LegalEagle (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to weigh in here also. The term "Cruelty" in the subsection is NPOV. I definitely agree that there were human-rights violations conducted, but devoting a large part of the article to just that is not a balanced treatment of the article (which is about Op Blue Star). I ran into a similar issue with Sukhdev Singh Babbar, which besides being horribly written, was completely focused on the treatment of his family and himself by authorities --vi5in^[talk] 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There has been no reply to my request for comments on considering the draft section on aftermath and controversy which contains all the references collated by previous authors but presents it in a much npov, non biased and balanced way. Hence I am going ahead and changing the controversy section. So I would request all to not change the new section and discuss any change beforehand at the talk page LegalEagle (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi's Justification for the Operation

There is missing statement by Indira Gandhi on Blue Star's justification that I think is appropriate to include in the article especially in the after effect section section that includes the allegations of cruelty. She told Time Magazine "Mahatma Gandhi, in his time accepted that necessity" The Time: July 2, 1984. p 36.Princhest(talk) 23:34 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Obfuscation of the facts in Introduction

The following statements are POV of the Indian Government.

1st POV "The operation was launched in response to a deterioration of law and order in the Punjab" This is according to the Indian Government and should be addressed as such: "According to the Indian Government"

2nd POV Statement "The government's reasons for a seemingly late action, its choice of day to attack and heavy army assault is still highly debated." What a bull? It is not debated, it is condemned as massacre by the eye witnesses as wanton destruction of Sikh heritage. It has been condemned as Genocide by American Anthropologist Cynthia K Mahmood in her book "Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dailogues with Sikh Militants"

3rd POV statement "Militarily successful, it is considered to be a political disaster and an un-precedented act in modern Indian history." The assertion "Militarily successful" is a biased and deliberate alteration to present a POV unless the serious allegations of cruelty are mentioned in the same line.

4th Statment The result of the operation was not just killings of Sikh militants but killing of Sikh Militants by delibrate confiscation of Sikhs relics,destruction of Akal Takht and massacre of pilgrims and should be stated so in a proper way. It is obvious that this purposeful obfuscation is to concele the results of the Operation Blue Star. The article needs to holistically mention all the facts present and not cherry-pick the ones that suit Indian Government's propaganda. Princhest(talk) 23:34 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi let us take the 'debatable issues' or pov issues (as per your view) one by one, so I would request you to solve the 'criticism' debate first and then move onto to make any major change to the introduction. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The introduction should include that the Operation was undeclared and unwarned. the Brig who executed the Operation accepted that it was undeclared and unwarned. [[11]]Princhest(talk) 10:51 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Extremist pov

This article is worsening due to POV edits by extremist Hindus and Sikhs.

This is example of how Canadian Gaddars control this page.

I added a sentence about how the violence between Nirankaris and Akhand Kirtani Jatha began with a reference. But the Khalistani extremist Singh6 whitewashed the information about AKJ members hacking off the arm of a Hindu sweetmeats seller, and added the false information that only AKJ members were killed in the violence. He also removed the {{who}} tag without providing attribution.

How worse this can get? 59.164.186.29 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Another Khalistani gaddar has restored the edits saying that Gill is not a reliable source! Now the Khalistani terrorist sites are reliable sources, but a full-fledged Sikh warrior Mr. KPS Gill is not reliable! So, how about these reliable sources: http://books.google.com/books?q=fauja+singh+sword+nirankari&btnG=Search+Books ? Mark Tully is not Indian. 59.164.186.29 (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

IP:59.164.186.29, Personal attack on other editors by calling them "Canadian Gaddars" (meaning "Canadian Traitors"), "extremists", and "terrorists" is not constructive. I felt Gill is not reliable source in the way you used it on the article because he is accused of custodial deaths, encounters and several HR violations as police chief of Punjab. This makes his work a POV only and not reliable source. Therefore, you cannot use his book as an absolute truth (like you did). Another reference that you have now added ("Genesis of the Problem") does not seem to have an author at all. Feel free to replace that with a reliable source and I'm sure somebody will check the reliability. Again, wikipedia is not place for emotional outburts, prejudices, national or religious zeal etc. If you have issues with some of the facts on this or any other article, feel free to start a new section enlisting the issues with article. Lastly, check wikipedia policy Comment on content', not on the contributor'. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 17:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I say that my family work within the Indian Government, my family have been life long Congress supporters, and in no way are we (or have ever been considered Khalistani). Speak to 90% of educated Hindu's and they will tell you too that the entire Bluestar episode and the terror that followed after is a blot on Indian History. At wikipedia we must be as neutral as possible and tell the entire episode with the facts, no matter how unpalatable they are. One can refrence numerous BBC, Amnesty International and even Indian Newspaper Articles that criticise Indira Ghandhi personally for th entire ugly episode. Let us tell it as it is, and not as how we would wish it. I say this to both sides. One point everyone is missing is the entire episode was NOT a fight between Sikhs and Hindu's, BUT a fight against the corrupt Congress Party of the time and a Sikh militarised by the Congress Party!!--Sikh-history (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sikh-history praji, I have no problems with you. You have always been an excellent neutral editor. My problem is with editors who ignore all kinds of references and add Hindu/Sikh extremist pov. Look at Roadahead. He is talking about burningpanjab.com reference but doesn't have any answer to the mark tully and other references I was talking about http://books.google.com/books?q=fauja+singh+sword+nirankari&btnG=Search+Books . My opposition is to all kinds of extremists that's why i have asked the article Hindu terrorism to be undeleted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=250680707&oldid=250679311 . 59.164.100.127 (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

IP:59.164.186.29/ 59.164.100.127, You have failed to comprehend my words in reply above or you simply skipped reading it all. May I request you to go back and read my previous reply again? --RoadAhead ^Discuss 18:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

I've been asked twice now to weigh in on this article and help resolve the issue. Are all parties willing to accept mediation on my part? If so, this is my plan of action:

1. Archive old discussions to that the mediation begins afresh
2. Cleanup page based on MoS issues
3. Finalise skeleton outline sections
4. Work on sections one by one. Starting from the first section, then second and ending with the lead.
5. Discuss the content on each section for grammar, prose, neutrality and comprehensiveness.
6. I will not be writing. Editors will work in turn to add content on this page. POV statements will be ironed out.
7. Bring this article to GA status
8. Bring this article to FA status

I do not like to really get embroiled in murky disputes, but its in the best interests to get controversial articles featured, to avoid edit wars in the future. Let me know if all agree to this set up. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nichalp, thank you for your courage to undertake mediation in one of the most controversial article known to me. This article and related articles on Sikh militancy/nationalism/secessionist movement have produced largest number of burnt out editors, many have taken wikibreak or have permanently retired. So I believe that not only in the interest of putting up a credible FA, but also to stop recurring edit wars and pov pushing, it is imperative that editors, under the mediatory guidance of more experienced administrators, work to produce a npov wiki entry. I am perfectly willing to accept mediation on your part. Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nichalp. It is very nice to have a great editor help us here. The mediation would be nice.

Our main challenge is to fight against disruptive edits by Indian jingoists (who refuse to believe that the Congress Government conducted excesses during the unfortunate operation) and by Khalistani zealots (who refuse to believe that the operation's chief aim was to flush out the extremists and it was not a deliberate conspiracy against Sikhism). 59.164.105.254 (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

59.164.105.254, What do you mean by we? Is there an organization here who is working under this IP address? Your position is quite contradictionary, if not a sham. One way you say India commited opression on Sikhs but still in your next attempt try to pretend that the aim was to "flush out militants". It doesn't make sense. The statements of victims and Army officials testify that Army fired at civilians because of "orders from above" not to mention the delibrate confiscation of Sikh relics accepted by the Indian Army. The present article doesn't give the background to the situation and carries the Indian POV. It doesn't mentions the demonization and terroriszation of Sikhs including numerous custodial deaths and torture pre-1984, demand for the Anandpur Sahib resolution and river watars dispute that led Bhindrawale to take on.Princhest (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Princhest try not to scare or browbeat anon WP:NOOB, the anon might have used 'us' to mean editors interested in this article. Also he spoke of mediatory solution and trying to tread the middle path while overcoming our mental block his response is quite commendable. LegalEagle (talk) 03:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Please vote at Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism before its too late. Kindly read its contents so that you could make your own decision about voting. --Singh6 (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not digress from the topic thread. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've not got confirmation from all parties. I'm waiting for some response from Singh6, Princhest, Sikh-history and Roadahead. Please confirm if you would like the issue to be placed under mediation. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nichalp, Kindly give me some time untill this Sunday, I will get back to you. I want to go through the whole discussion first because LegalEagle did not invite me earlier. And, LegalEagle, believe me, I do not argue if I do not have strong proofs. --Singh6 (talk) 08:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Singh6, Sunday is fine. You do not need to really examine the old discussion as I plan to work from scratch. Even I have not really looked at what's POV and what's not. By archiving older discussions, it would be a good starting point to end the edit wars. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Invite?? --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Why are you taking it negatively. LegalEagle invited several editors to this discussion, you can check his/her contributions. --Singh6 (talk) 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Singh6 if you had checked carefully my contribution list you would have found that I had tried to invite only administrators to mediate/ give third opinion as they are less prone to bias and have some standing to enforce mediatory solutions. LegalEagle (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, I'm ready to work together, however, I'll have to see how mediation works. If everything is done strictly in accordance with Wikipedia policies I've no objection. Having that, let me add that there are issues where everyday Wikipedia policies fail, for instance, "consenus" policy will fail to do justice with the voice of 1.8% population as compared to 80% others when it comes to anything as controvertial as religion or Punjab issues (just one hasty example). Other thing I would like to add is that most of the articles related to Sikh issues keep citing the conflicting interest "GOI White Paper" but fail to cite "SGPC White Paper". Regards, --RoadAhead ^Discuss 17:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, I've detailed my plan above with the goal of getting all editors cooperating to get the article featured status. Featured status demands NPOV, stability, RS, and brilliant prose. I see no reason why it would fail any of WPs policies if it gets to that stage. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, I appreciate you investing time on this topic. I'll have to disagree with you that if an article reaches FA status it is gauranteed to not having failed WP policies. See for instance Gandhi which is FA but missed out a lot of information about Gandhi and presisntly remains in that state. Any information that goes against the long portrayed image of Gandhi simply gets deleted as "undue" (another big debate, if time permits). Having said that, I must clear that I'm not saying that one must not work on getting the article under question to the FA status. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 20:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I would be digressing from the main thread of discussion but to best of my belief allegation leveled by Roadahead on 'lot of information' missed out in Gandhi FA needs to be repudiated. Roadahead in all probabilities would be referring to allegedly racial leanings of Gandhi brought out by GB Singh in his controversial books Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity and Gandhi Under Cross Examination there is very little evidence other than the books (to my knowledge; and I have not read Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity or the other one and have only perused through its reviews) which support the theories proposed by GBS. Just to add bit more ammo to my reply I would like to draw roadahead's attention to the article on holocaust, despite several controversial conspiracy theories related to holocaust denial there is just a link to the same effect in the holocaust article (yet the article on gandhi mentions the first book by GBS; so what do the editor now want a fork on gandhi's hate for black and white and may be brown?), thus consensus policy ensures that conspiracy theory or undue/alternate theories do not creep into mainstream article. LegalEagle (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Before we go for the Mediation, do the Mediators believe that the article should be based on

1. Which information is relevant to the article and which is not?
2. Honesty in proving the value of your suggestion by citing effective examples and historical sources.
3. Honesty on part of Mediators to present the Holistic view of the situation here.
4. The historical Epicenter based on relevance of the context. The current article misses the necessary equations including the political conflict of Punjab with India especially pertaining to time-period 1978-1984 that gave rise to Bhindranwale and other Sikh Militant resistance groups. The importance of Sikh demands such as Anandpur Sahib Resolution, River Waters Dispute and Revocation of Hindu Code Bill made by the Sikh political parties and how differently it was conveyed by Bhindranwale and ofcourse the counter-position taken by the Indian State. This rise of Punjab conflict is ignored in the context of Operation Blue Star. A proper background that holistically starts with Political Conflict in Punjab (1947-1984 with more emphasis on 1978-1984 and the rise of Bhindranwale) will lead us to mediate further on this article. The Mediators need to be clear about the historical epicenter before we can honestly have a consensus. Princhest (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Princhest, as of writing the post, I will be the sole mediator. Anyone else wishing to join me is welcome, as long as they have not edited the article under controversial circumstances. To answer your questions:

1. There is no clear answer on this. The question is ambiguously worded. The scope will be determined through consensus within the wikipedia frameworks. See WP:UNDUE
2. Your answer can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I will be working under this framework.
3. Your answer can be found here: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I will be working under this framework.
4. Yes, events leading up to the incident need to be covered. I was to suggest that. The Operation Bluestar cannot be written independent of the events that led to the incident, or the aftermath.

Does this satisfactorily answer your queries? =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi can we start with rewriting the article as per wiki standard under Nichalp's mediation? It seems that we have at least a consensus to that effect. LegalEagle (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp and LegalEagle, The issue here is not Wiki standards but the issue is the format and setup of the article. I don't think anybody has an issue with the Wiki standards. The crux of the issue lies on the outline and the Mediator should first build a consensus on what important aspects are needed to be elaborated. After that, the elaboration and information should be included according to the Wiki Standards. Princhest (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Princhest, you've not answered the point. Are you willing to go for mediation? =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp, why is it is not important to know the Mediator? It is a simple question to which you can give an honest answer. What are your ideas about this article and specifically how should it be emphasized? You haven't given any input or views in this regard. You have previously considered "Allegations of crimes" as "criticisms" without presenting any substantiation despite all the examples to the contrary from other Wiki articles. How do you defend that? Aren't you sending a message that you don't want to acknowledge the proper context of the article here?Princhest (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

That's is because I am not a subject expert. If there are allegations, then as per wikipolicies they should not be a minority viewpoint (in short, a single viewpoint is usually minority -- depends on the context). At this moment I have zero idea what goes in and what does not. We have to discuss and proceed ahead at each stage. If I feel the sources are not up to the mark, I will request the persons to supply additional references including beefing up the quality of references. =Nichalp «Talk»=

Hi Princhest, the wiki standards are so elaborate and descriptive that they can very well become the touchstone to test the validity of format and setup of the article. LegalEagle (talk) 01:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am aware about the Wiki Standards but certainly don't see them being applied here. Princhest (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Princhest, dont take this personally but I believe that it is your attitude to not focus/understand beyond your point; and constant doubts on the capability and neutrality of an able administrator which has led to the failure of this mediation. LegalEagle (talk) 11:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing cited information

Please do not delete cited specific information and replace with weasel words like "He also reported various other instances of torture and violation of basic human rights". Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I had fixed a link (India Today) which must have been oversighted by you, please do revert that. I have no intention in getting into an edit war or adding stuff to make a sensation. Please remember that wikipedia is not a place to sensationalise or spread propaganda please check WP:SOAP. I would request you to kindly get an experienced user (preferably an administrator) go over the edits and check if [army]tortured by pulling their beards, removing their turbans, tying their long hair around their necks and putting sand in their eyes. Chellaney also reported news from a local journalist who saw Sikh youth were made to pull their trousers above their knees, kneel and march on the hot road while the soldiers repeatedly kicked and punched them. is preferable over He also reported various other instances of torture and violation of basic human rights. Happy editing. LegalEagle (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

LegalEagle, violation of Human Rights should include the description of the reported criminal behavior of Indian Army. Lets not hogwash it.Princhest (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Princhest welcome back to wiki, please understand that there is a difference behind describing reported criminal behavior and propaganda. What you are supporting is a plain propaganda against a state machinery. And please note that wikipedia has strict policies against propaganda. I would like you to get at least one experienced editor endorse your view on this issue. LegalEagle (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The report mentioning the criminal behavior of Indian Army is credible, from an Associated Press journalist. Here, by calling it propaganda you are purposefully denying information for the sake of defending India's machinery as your POV. Princhest (talk) 22:58 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Princhest, please go through WP:SOAP, it mentions that an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view, now the core component of objectivity is missing when one adds such flaming content which is better suited for some terror recruitment site. However given that you feel otherwise, it is obligatory on our part to seek some administrator's help to resolve the issue. LegalEagle (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

LegalEagle, I'm really loosing my patience of your continued personal attacks. The comments like "flaming content which is better suited for some terror recruitment site" are not only irresponsible but also personal attacks on other editors calling them terrorits recruiters. From long experience of discussing and editing with you, I find that anybody talking about any Human Right violation in India becomes a terrorist in your list. From calling me "Khalistani sympathizer" you are now crossing all limits by calling "terrorist recruiters". I do not expect such irresponsible behavior from somebody like you who is not new to wikipedia. By the way, by your approach, are all the editors of the articles, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse,Nature of Abu Ghraib abuse, Iaşi pogrom, Dorohoi pogrom, Auschwitz concentration camp etc.... are "terrorist recruiters"?? ---RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 15:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to stylize yourself as a "terrorist recruiter" I can only sympathise with you; as I have never used such terms but merely noted that the inherently flaming, dangerous contents which are repeatedly added by you without any respect for the NPOV policies or the WP: SOAP are more suited for terror recruitment sites. As also in my long experience with you whenever someone tries to moderate the extremist views with full reference to the sites and an option for the interested reader to check out further detail, you chip in by saying that they are weasel words or pro Indian pov pushers. Without going into the factual validity of your contribution I would like to add that the level of graphic detail added by you is not only potentially harmful for wiki project but also looks more like a extremist sikhwiki article or a blog than wikipedia where NPOV is one of the main pillars. In past I have repeatedly cried myself hoarse asking for neutral arbitration whenever we had any disagreemnt however there had been little effort from you in that respect. Your only supporters who would then follow up the articles would be some zealot and his sockpuppets. So stop adding such khalistani propaganda and if you still feel that you are justified kindly get some opinion from administrators. Also please do not try to shift attention from the problem in hand, none of the articles mentioned by you like Auschwitz concentration camp etc. go into such graphic gory detail of alleged HR violation it seems to be the perfect example of Ignoratio elenchi which you have often accused me of. LegalEagle (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear LegalEagle, I will not indulge in explicit explanation of the application of "Ignoratio elenchi" to you, it will be evident to the readers that your application of this word against me is not only a fallacy in itself, but also a result of some personal vendetta. I'll, however, add that you have not been "often accused"; your logical reasoning was found in this category and it was notified only once during previous discussions. On my addition of 1984-1985 reports from Associated Press reporter Brahma Chellaney,The Times and The New York Times you commented "flaming content which is better suited for some terror recruitment site" and now you are saying "I have never used such terms" claiming that I am "stylizing" myself as such. How do you want the readers to interpret your words? Later part of your comments make no sense; I would appreciate if you can be a little more specific. Also, could you help understand what is the claimed "dangerous" nature of the "dangerous contents which are repeatedly being added" by me? Further, you are once again calling the plain report as "graphic" and going onto claiming that sockpuppets and zealots are my "only supporters". First, I am not here to win elections and I don't go about asking people to support me, I'll save myself from looking into where you have been yourself asking for support. In fact, this sockpuppet-theory from you is another example of "Ignoratio elenchi" fallacy. Second, do you really want Wikipedia community to decide based on this sockpuppet-theory of yours, keeping in mind that your edits have been supported by one of the most nefarious ban-evading sockpuppet on Wikipedia called Hkelkar?( here is the never ending list of sockpuppets of Hkelkar for your perusal). I urge you to give up this kind of approach. Just like most of the sockpuppets have been doing so far, you too, in your attempted appeal to spite are tagging HR violation information as "Khalistani propaganda". In your usual attempt of turning a blind eye, you have gone several steps ahead now by stating that "none of the articles mentioned by you ....go into such graphic gory detail of alleged HR violation". Did you really look into all and found "none"?
-- Roadahead ★ 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

[Indian Army]tortured by pulling their beards, removing their turbans, tying their long hair around their necks and putting sand in their eyes. ... Sikh youth were made to pull their trousers above their knees, kneel and march on the hot road while the soldiers repeatedly kicked and punched them. If this is not blatant graphic propagandised sensationalism then I ask what is? May be it is indeed a plain report!. Dear Roadahead I am sure you are not here to win elections and I am also equally sure that it is better to save yourself asking for support as there would indeed be little. LegalEagle (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, What I said was, "...I'll save myself from looking into where you yourself have been asking for support", not "save" myself from "asking for support". Please read and respond responsibly, it will save us both time and also other readers who may wish to participate in discussion. -- Roadahead ★ 16:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Roadahead, I strongly feel that through mutual bilateral discussion we are not going to solve the problem in hand. What for you is a plain report seems to me to be a propaganda. and now that you have made clear that you are not averse to seek support (provided it is from neutral, ncoi wikipedians), let us make a concerted effort to get third party inputs on the dispute. Do let me know your thoughts. LegalEagle (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

LegalEagle, This is NOT a forum to spread racism against the Sikh people. The credibility of the source is according to Wiki standards and you are trying to vandalize the article by removing the relevant information. The cited source is within the guidelines of Wikipedia and there is nothing propagandous in reporting the content of the source. Princhest (talk) 23:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Road, can you please, if available, provide the internet link to the Chellany articles in Times dated 1984-06-14 referred by you, so that other editors may check the verifiability of the info provided by you. And Princhest Wikipedia is not a forum to spread racism against ANYONE, please dont just single out a particular section/community. I would request you to refer to WP:NPOV & WP:SOAP. And if you feel I have vandalized the article please ask an administrator to look into the matter and arbitrate on the issue. LegalEagle (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

LegalEagle, thy name is "Roadahead" not "Road". These reports, provided by Brahma Chellaney via Associated Press, published in several 1984-1985 newspapers and verified by other Indian independent news sources, are not available on internet links; you may be able to find them in your local city libraries or other sources. Thanks, -- Roadahead ★ 00:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roadahead, the citation added by you states Chellaney, Brahma (1984-06-14). "Sikhs in Amritsar 'tied up and shot'" (in English), Brahma Chellaney, for the Associated Press, was the only foreign correspondent in Amritsar during the storming of the temple, The Times, pp. 1. Retrieved on 26 December 2008. Does this mean that you checked this out on 26 December 2008 at your local library, as because the article if published in The Times as claimed in the citation would be there irrespective of the date when it is checked or retrieved. If you follow the WP:ECITE the retrieve date is only important if an embedded citation is given. Kindly clarify (if these citations are taken from some other primary source like any book etc. please provide the primary source as well). LegalEagle (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, Assume good faith and stop practicing your RAW ambitions on me. These 2 newspapers The Times and The New York Times may be available by various means; I simply don't know all the processes. Stop asking me what I did on what date; if you have problem with the style of citation bring that up in a separate section and we can together work to fix that. -- Roadahead ★ 16:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Roadahed, assuming good faith when such shocking & sensational allegations of HR abuse is made one must check not only check neutrality and balance but also its verifiability. The burden is on you to state where you got the material from. As for style of citation, there is no need to start a seperate section, you may refer to How to format citations; the retrieval date in the citation provided by you is superfluous as I have stated earlier the retrieval date is of importance only if there is an embedded citation ie, an internet link to the source in question. Please respond responsibly so that there are no confusion relating to source and citations in question. Also it is R&AW and not RAW and it is not an ambition. LegalEagle (talk) 05:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

A search at Times archive with keyword as 'Chellaney' gives 9 result out of which one seems to be the reference to the claim of HR violation reported by Chellaney. But login is required to view the full the article. So in the present case scenario I would assume good faith and drop the verifiability concerns as to the content of the report. But I would request Roadahead to delete the retrieval date for the references which do not have internet link. Also keeping in nature the controversiality of the topic in question I would request all editors to first discuss any major change or view before adding it to the article and not the other way round. LegalEagle (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

So I've been contacted for a third opinion. My impression is that the key things needed here are neutrality and specificity. An article must strive to be both as neutral and as specific as possible. So let's take a look at the debated wording:

• "It was also described as number two in the Top 10 Political Disgraces in India Today, a reputed weekly magazine." Why the massively unneutral word "reputed" is inserted without an explanation, I'm at a loss to try to figure out. Does the magazine not exist, or does it actually come out monthly, or something of the sort that would warrant it "reputed" status? A citation must be included.
• "He also reported various other instances of torture and violation of basic human rights." From the viewpoint of a reader, I'd say this is a rather vague sentence. What acts of torture did he claim? In what way were human rights violated? How did other sources like political figures, the Indian government, etc. respond to this news? To me that's the simplest way to gain neutrality and specificity, to go into more detail, and then explain the reactions and consequences of what happened. bibliomaniac15 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you bibliomaniac15 for your opinion. I do not dispute removal of the word 'reputed' rather the use of very graphic description of alleged HR abuse. Also the viewpoint of Indian government was never brought out in the article. Furthermore the subsection on the alleged HR violation already provides for a detailed explanation of HR abuse by C.K.C Reddy and provides references to such accusations made by others. Thus imo by repeatedly mentioning instances and description of HR violation by various different reporters etc. we are making the article a bit unbalanced. I completely respect your opinion and would request you to kindly go over the entire article and reconsider your opinion. Thank you. LegalEagle (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• My views: As requested at India noticeboard:
  • "It was also described as number two in the Top 10 Political Disgraces in the weekly magazine - India Today." is enough. Reputed is not needed
  • Instead of the vague nature of "He also reported various other instances of torture and violation of basic human rights.", I will prefer precise info " that elderly men who surrendered on the first day of army attack were taken away by army and tortured by pulling their beards, removing their turbans, tying their long hair around their necks and putting sand in their eyes". The references should be checked if the details are right. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Redtigerxyz, I requested opinion on "removing/toning down few lines on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section". I did never dispute the removal of the term 'reputed', my only concern was the graphic imagery that was being drawn (the part referred by roadahead as weaseling out). Unfortunately the references could not be checked as there was no internet link provided by Roadahead to the source in question. LegalEagle (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear bibliomaniac15 and Redtigerxyz, I've had similar issues, that is why I had removed the uncited "reputed" word added by LeagleEagle to India Today and also reverted his weaseling out of HR violations. Hence, followed this whole section and discussions between LeagleEagle and myself. The reaction of Government and worldwide media on Chellaney's reports can be found here. Regards, --Roadahead ★ 06:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Roadahead, the dispute was on the excerpts of report by Chellany and not on the 'reputed' word aspect. Also the reaction of government link mentioned by you lead to a wiki entry which should generally avoided. Also just totally offtopic the subsection in the Chellany article prominently mentions how he was persecuted by the agencies but does not mention a basic fact that the government denied all such allegation. Also if possible kindly do search for ecopies of the Times article as it would greatly aid other editors. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Since I am new to this debate, I will not like to step into the old stream of thoughts...though I see no reason why the details like "beard pulled..." be removed…especially if they are cited from 'reputed' resources. Sometimes a neutral point of view just becomes a neutered one. Sometimes details are what we need, I remember how families still come together over details of the Partition, and how after we have quit our sides, we realise that it all comes down to the basic human loss, and above all loss of humanity. History is what it is, and is neutral by itself, so let's respect that, even if it is comfortable or at times unpalatable for us! Peace can never be achieved through denial; mankind has tried it several times in history but failed every single time, though it is also true history is usually the history that is written by the winners of the war. So may we all be truly neutral in all aspects and yes stay respectful to each other and respective point of views, no matter radical or contradictory we might seem to each other... One think though I would not like to see here is euphemism, at the cost of our future generations not knowing the truth, of the times we have lived and beared together. Those were terrible times of us humans, and that above all we need to take from it, if at all, and not who is to blame for the human tragedy. We all are individually and collectively, responsible citizens of this little planet, and must remember how thousands have died just because of differing point of views! So let’s take care, and not make our point of view bigger than our humanity! Let’s not miss the whole point of being ‘out here’ all together - to become better human beings. Nothing is worth more, and yes nothing can be more challenging than that!... Peace! --Ekabhishek (talk) 07:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ekabhishek thank you for weighing in, about 33% of the article is on criticism of the operation, even without the mention of "beard pulled..." etc. the readers have a full idea of alleged violation of HR by other description which are provided. By repeated mention of different alleged manner of HR violation the article would be in a great danger of being unbalanced. Thank you again for your kind words. LegalEagle (talk) 07:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Posting here at the request of Legaleagle on my talk page. I looked this over, and fully concur with the comments from bibliomaniac15 at the top of this thread. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Referance Library

It needs a separate mention under the criticims of operation as it hardly represents what HR violation, Time of Attack and Media Blackout are all about.See above the discussion topic of Sikh relics.

Secondly, I discussed this with LegalEagle in the beginging that it should be streamlined with the source information and it hardly is streamlined.Princhest (talk) 17:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Princhest, I could not understand this comment in entirety. Are you suggesting a different subsection on the issue of the burning of the Sikh Reference Library in the Army attack and the allegations? Did not understand the "streamlining" comment as well. If you have suggestions on streamlining, can you copy the present content of the article and provide your feedback on streamlining in your sandbox here. Regards, -- Roadahead ★ 00:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A good suggestion by roadahead, princhest please provide your version at the sandbox, it would be better if you could take the entire controversy section there and construct it adding whatever you think is relevant, but let any discussion on the proposed version be in this page. Also just a proposal from my side why not divide the total article content into 7 parts (by volume of data), 1/7th for lead, 2/7th for background, 2/7th for actual operation itself, 1/7th for aftermath and 1/7th for criticism. Do give your thoughts. LegalEagle (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

more Third Opinion

I have been requested to comment here by LegalEagle. Though I have edited some articles on Indian politics and religion, I am not from India and I was not familiar with Operation Blue Star before. I have also not had time to look at the entire article yet. Having said that, I agree with the comments by Redtigerxyz and Bibliomaniac15 in a previous section tonight. The article must be neutral and specific. Human rights violations are an important part of any Wikipedia article on conflict or war. The supporters of the government may provide their justifications, but this does not mean that the descriptions of human rights violations should be deleted. Both the descriptions of human rights violations and the rebuttals to these allegations must be referenced with reputable sources, more than paerhaps any other content on Wikipedia. I hope this helps, and I will watch and comment on the situation as it develops, although there may be some times when I will have to be away from the computer for days at a time. Academic Challenger (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Academic Challenger, thank you for such quick response. The criticism section of the article consists nearly 1160 words (excluding references) out of the total 3835 words in the article. The article has ample mention and description of alleged HR abuse in form of report by C.K.C Reddy and Chellany (where he reports that the doctor who performed the autopsy called it a virtual massacre) my only contention was that in adding the description in question, the article would lose its objective, neutral and specific standards and would read more like a blog entry. I do hope once you look at the entire article you may reconsider your decision. LegalEagle (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrapping up this dispute?

I likewise was asked to comment here by LegalEagle. I've had no involvement with any of the editors here nor with this specific topic or topics relating to India. I would echo the views already expressed by Academic Challenger and others above. I see no problem with the information included in this edit which is what we have in the current version. The material included there does not strike me as propagandistic as LegalEagle suggests above, but rather wholly appropriate for a section dealing with supposed human rights violations. Obviously we don't want too much detail, but we do need to specify the allegations in question and it seems to me that's what's happening.

I'm not at all trying to cut off further discussion or other outside comments, but I would point out at this point that all the outside views articulated here (four I believe including mine) have basically said the same thing I said in the previous paragraph. Since LegalEagle asked for third opinions - a good idea which can often help in these situations - I would encourage that editor to recognize that most people here do not share his or her view of the material in question. Perhaps it is best to acknowledge this, allow the material to stay in, and move on to other matters?

Finally as often happens there is a lot of heated language in the discussion a couple of sections above and most problematically some specific attacks on the viewpoints/perspectives of other editors. I'm sure everyone here knows this, but in a dispute of this nature it is never useful to refer to another editor as "biased because of factor x" or a "_______ist" (pick your ideology or worldview). It's hard to avoid that trap (I've certainly fallen into it at times), but the best way to communicate in these kind of disputes is to deal only with the merits of the argument rather than personalizing the matter.

Hopefully this is helpful, I'm not very active on Wikipedia right now but if I can be of any help in the future you can contact me on my talk page.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Bigtimepeace, it seems that we have a consensus that the disputed description of the alleged HR abuse is wikifit. However like Bigtimepeace, I still would welcome others to share their views on the issue. I would also request Bigtimepeace to kindly go over the article and provide us some pointers by which we could improve the article. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well thanks for taking that view and recognizing the consensus here. I don't really have time to look at this in depth I'm afraid (I'd never heard of this and am glad to know about it), but I read through everything from the "Aftermath" section on and it seems to be in pretty decent shape. This seems like one of those government operations (all governments have them) which has been heavily criticized by a number of people and the article is going to reflect that, i.e. probably going to have more "negative" than "positive" takes on the operation (maybe not as bad as Bay of Pigs Invasion but you get the picture). That's fine as we do not impose artificial balance if a given topic (be it an army operation or a Britney Spears album) is more often than not treated negatively in secondary sources. If more viewpoints from the Indian government and/or their supporters could be brought in that would be good, though some of that is in there already and I have a feeling this is not something the government enjoys commenting on since it has proven so controversial.

I have one very obvious suggestion which can be dealt with immediately. The entire content of the "casualties" section is duplicated right after that at the beginning of the "aftermath" section. Obviously we don't want that, so either the "casualties" section should be deleted or, what probably makes more sense, the text about casualties should be deleted from the "aftermath" section.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, thanks for highlighting this redundant text, I have fixed the issue. --Roadahead ★ 18:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Framework to work from

Hi, my opinion was requested by User:Legaleagle86, although I'm not sure why, since I'm not usually active in mediation, nor on Indian issues. However, there is definitely a need to have more people involved here. Below are my recommendations:

(A) Remove all unsourced material: Editors should cooperate to remove all unsourced statements from the article. As a severely controversial topic, all information must be sourced. All information added afterwards must be sourced.

(B) No removal of reliably sourced material: No editor should be removing reliably sourced information from the article without consensus on the talk page. Major news sources such as the Associated Press should not be dismissed as propaganda, even if you don't like what the news article is saying.

(C) Neutral article framework: The article needs to be re-organized to facilitate a neutral presentation of facts. Here's my proposed section order (this can be altered somewhat depending on the relative availability of impeccably-sourced material for each section):

1.Introduction

2.Historical background

3.Major participants and their backgrounds

3.1.Involved people from Indian government

3.2.Involved people from Indian military

3.3.Involved people from Sikh militant movement

3.4.Involved Sikhs who were not part of the militant movement

4.Timeline of events of Operation Blue Star

5.Aftermath of the operation (this would probably be restricted to the few weeks following)

6.Political and historical ramifications of the operation

6.1Impact on Indian society from 1984 to the present

6.2Allegations of human rights violations by the Indian Army

6.3Criticism of the timing of the attack

You'll note that the Allegations and Criticism sections have been moved to the end. Everything up to that point should be exhaustively sourced material which sticks to the facts of the operation and surrounding events, with no implications that either side of the conflict was right or wrong. The Allegations and Criticism sections should stick to direct quotes taken from reliable sources. Each quote should be matched with an opposing quote.

(D) Description of human rights violations: Any human rights violations that have been indisputably documented by reliable sources should be put in the Timeline section, but they should NOT be described as "human rights violations". What happened should be described factually, in the order it occurred. Wikipedia should NEVER be in the position of judging what is right and wrong, and no editor should be adding text that takes a moral stand, no matter how universal the opinion. Even in such extreme cases as The Holocaust, you will note that the article NOT once passes judgment on the Nazis. It only factually states what occurred. Even in the Allegations and Criticism sections of this article, any statement about human rights violations should only occur in direct quotes from reliable sources.

That's all for now. I will monitor this page for a few days and see how you guys are doing. If it doesn't become more neutral in the near future, I will remove all unsourced material myself, reducing it to a stub if necessary.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 17:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi thank you for your offer to mediate. Acting on your suggestion I have started to sandbox the article. It is at a very nascent stage, but I have faced a problem on how to describe the belligerents opposing the Indian Army - options range from gunmen, militiamen, separatist, militants, terrorists. I believe that each term has its own povs, so can there be a uniform agreed term to describe the sikh belligerents? Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi LeagleEagle, in the article in your sandbox, you have killed the heading "Criticism of the Operation" and moved the content under new heading "Impact on Indian society from 1984 to the present". This killing of heading and moving to new heading again weasels out the criticism, allegations and public wrath which was reflected by previous heading. Lets call the spade a spade and not - a playing object or a societal problem (intended pun). --Roadahead ★ 17:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roadahead, thank you for your comments, I was blindly following the scheme given by Aervanath, to create the first rudimentary draft of the new/revised article. If we have a consensus, we would revert to "Criticism of the Operation" rather than "Impact on Indian society from 1984 to the present" although one might feel by using the word 'criticism' we are value judging as hinted by Aervanath 'Wikipedia should NEVER be in the position of judging what is right and wrong, and no editor should be adding text that takes a moral stand, no matter how universal the opinion.' Also Roadahead can you please implement suggestion (D) of Aervanath at the sandbox. Thanks again for your comments. LegalEagle (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

LegalEagle, I don't agree with your heading also. Revert it to the original in relation to the content. What you are trying to do is evaluate the allegations and effects from your own POV.Princhest (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible source

"Terrorism in Context",By Martha Crenshaw,Penn State Press, 1995,ISBN 0271010150, 9780271010151,633 pages

visible online. Gives some potentially useful citations as well.sinneed (talk) 04:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)