Talk:Operation Blue Star/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Top 10 Political Disgraces

I don't actually think that the 10 mentioned are ranked in anything other than date-order; It seems misleading to state that Blue Star ranks at number two, especially as the author hasn't called the 10 political disgraces mentioned the top 10 Political Disgraces anyway (although I admit it highly likely that was what was intended). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.110.1 (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted this change

Since these are the military commanders, it seems best to leave the military titles in, as I look at it from the outside. I won't revert the change a second time.sinneed (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Series of edits I rolled back today (6 June 2009)

There was a LARGE removal of content with no explanation, including removal of named sources.

While I am confident the edit was in wp:Good Faith, its effect was vandalistic, and I rolled it back, but did NOT warn the editor.

There were also some edits I think were excellent, and I re-applied them or similar, adding wp:edit summaries. There was an addition without source of an interesting anecdote about the soldiers being shoeless as a show of respect, but it was not cited, and I re-added it but with a fact-flag.

I light-heartedly hope that I added any useful content from this anon editor, and retrieved any lost content.- sinneed (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion site as a source.

http://www.sikhsangat.com/index.php?showtopic=44433 - cut to talk so it won't be lost. I also note that my edit summary is in error... it says "blog"... but this is a discussion board, rather than a blog.- sinneed (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

A few sources that might help

I also think that there is a resource somewhere on SikhNet.com that shows an account of a person who stayed in the Harmandir Sahib in 1984. I'm still trying to find a link for it as it may provide useful information that may add on to the article. I have also found a source about the 'fake' HR abuse mentioned in an earlier dispute. Look at the photographs on this site: http://84humanrights.org . There is also a film/documentary on the WIDOW COLONY related to 1984. its website is http://www.thewidowcolony.com80.1.165.36 (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

International Reactions?

Anyone? Children of the dragon (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Added tags

The article is regulary changed with various points of view. The facts of this incident are clearly and *strongly* disputed, and the prevention of press coverage makes all the sources suspect... the only people who were witnesses were either victims or participants.- Sinneed 15:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Pettigrew

The text describes Joyce Pettigrew as a "Swedish anthropologist". I was under the impression she was, in fact, Scottish (79.190.69.142 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC))

Scottish - but why does this belong in the article? - Sinneed 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Massacre in a Holy Place

One editor, seems to have an objection to this being refered to as a massacre in a holy place. I have added a citation that claims this to be a massacre. Can we add back the link? Thanks--Sikh-History 12:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

See my reply to the same query by User:Sikh-history at may talk page ([1]) Arjun^codename024 18:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I(profitoftruth85) have copied the reply below:

No dear friend. Sikhs describe Op Bluestar as a massacre means that it's a massacre from a Sikh Point of view. It in no way implies that the assertion is from a Neutral POV. As merriam websters tells me; massacre is "the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty". This does not apply to this event. The military moved in to clear the Sikh separatists who resisted, ensuing an armed conflict. Categorizing this a massacre is not all correct. Thanks for talking this up here.

Let's be clear that this is not a black and white issue. If we had to list the points of view here, the "Sikh Point of view" would be split up into 'most Sikhs' and 'partisans'. At the time 'most Sikhs' did not support an armed conflict against the government of india while 'partisans' did. A large number of 'most Sikhs' were in the Harmandir Sahib at the time to celebrating Guru Arjan Dev's death and were killed as a result of the attack. I said this in edit here[2]. I think it's important not to ignore the effect violence can have on innocent people. I have to ask too, why did you say "dear friend"? You've never met this person before and you are having a disagreement with him/her, it looks weird. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll go ahead and add it in then.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:POV would be valid if it was not from a cited source. The source clearly states that Sikhs see this as "Ghallughara" or massacre, there is no distortion of the over Neutral Point of View, because, other points of view have been include. I would be in favour of keeping Profitoftruth85, because many innocent people were caught up in this Operation (due to the fact it was carried out on the Martyrdom of Guru Arjun, who ironically gave his life for Hindu's). According to Cynthia Mahmood, there were thousands of innocent worshippers caught up in this, and massacred. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a massacre is very much a one sided view. The army also suffered causalities. The army did not "massacre" the separatists, the army moved on to eliminate them from the Golden Temple which resulted in armed conflict. Arjun^codename024 11:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You've completely ignored the paragraph I wrote on how this isn't a black and white issue.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Arjun you have ignored the reference from Cynthia Mahmood. The separatists deserved (rightly or wrongly) what happened to them, but this operation was done on the day of the Martyrdon of Guru Arjan. The place was rammed full of innocent worshippers, who were "massacred". I think General Sinha described it as a "Turkey shoot". I suggest you read the references, or we ask for WP:Mediation. Thanks --Sikh-History 18:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Iam sure their are few who believe this was a massacre( just like their are a few who believe the earth is flat). however NPOV is a core policy that specifically states that we do NOT give equal weight to all points of view but rather proportional weight. please see WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE for more details. vast majority of RS do NOT describe this as a massacre. this was a bona fide military action against well entrenched and well armed militants commanded by General Shahbeg Singh { with some collateral damage for sure) so using the term massacre to describe this event is inherently non NPOV. I think it is a fringe view ( calling it a massacre).--Wikireader41 (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a fringe theory at all. And who are you kidding about impartiality? Your user page has a picture of General Sherman and a statement about how you wish India had a general like him.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we mention that "it is considered as a massacre as some" and use a footnote to point out the specific instances of who consider this as a massacre? If a section of sikhs viewing this as a massacre had an impact on them supporting the Khalistan movement, the view

File:Sikh billboard.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sikh billboard.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sikh billboard.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Uncertain Estimates of Casualties/Conflicts in Numbers of Casualties

It appears that the "official estimates" of deaths (under 500) and injuries, along with the size of Sikh opposition forces ("Thirty Thousand marched/Twenty Thousand massed") implies that certitude of estimates is unknown or is debatable. And while "official estimates" are documentable, it appears that they are disputed. Hence it seems that numerical allocations should be avoided--even if documentation is provided? At this point, a reading of the article is confusing to the Reader.Charley sf (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

AR Darshi

This has been removed repeatedly in the past as per WP:RS/WP:SPS, and I'm removing it for the same reason -- the book explicitly mentions the author as one of the publishers. utcursch | talk 11:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WP:RSN - this is not a reliable source. utcursch | talk 02:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As three days was clearly not enough, it's been locked down for a week now to allow the discussion below, and any other DR processes needed, to play out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Sikh Riots

The anti sikh riots were not a result of Operation Blue Star, but a result of the assassination of Indira Gandhi. This is basic etiology. If any editor disputing this, please tell why. If not, I will remove anti-sikh riots. Thank you. JDiala (talk) 22:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, That is why its says "Assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in October followed by Anti-Sikh massacre." It is a big event and this is a relevent place to put it. It clearly states that it occured after the death of Indira Gandhi not as a result of Blue Star. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you have to understand etiology. You may only include things that were a direct result of the battle, not subsequent events. The anti-Sikh riots were caused by the assassination of Indira Gandhi, not OP Bluestar; therefore, there is *no reason* to include them here. They were not a result of OP Bluestar. You can't have the results of other results in the section, otherwise there would be dozens of different results!JDiala (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay fair enough dude Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> UK probes role in India's Golden Temple raid>> UK role in Sikh temple raid stirs anger >> UK advised India over Golden Temple raid(Lihaas (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)).

UK SAS plan to minimize collateral damage rejected

http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2014/01/20/The-Golden-Temple-the-SAS-and-the-echoes-of-history.aspx

Notable at this level? Hcobb (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Let us discuss that how this information will be added. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the use of specific words

Hello everybody, There were a lot of edits and reverts regarding the use specific words in the info box in last few days. Now, article is fully protected and it's a perfect time to discuss this issue here on talk page in a civil manner. Hopefully we will find solution via WP:Consensus. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to add "Nihung Guards" into the infobox. Honestly, this is being overcomplicated. You guys probably think I'm getting annoying, but Nihung Guards that actually fought in the battle would already fall into the category of Sikh militants, and the ones that didn't fight would fit into the category of civilians. It's unnecessary to include them. Also, I believe that "high civilian casualties" should be eliminated from the results section in the infobox. Casualties are reserved for the "casualties" section. In no military battle, operation or war on all of Wikipedia are "high civilian casualties" included in the "results" section of the main infobox. That is almost unanimously reserved for who won the battle. Even WW2, with 50,000,000 civilians dead, doesn't include it. Furthermore, the number of civilian casualties is unknown in this battle and highly subject to bias and differential interpretations.

I also believe that the "492–8,000 civilians killed" should be removed. There are no WP:Reliable sources to suggest that there were 8000 casualties. Secondly, the number of army casualties should be stated as 83-700(or 365) because there are WP:Reliable sources to suggest that there were more military casualties.JDiala (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

The above editor as made several assumptions that fall into WP:OR

1. That this was a military battle as part of a war as in the 2nd World War. It was not. It was a one off millitary operation like the SAS military Operation in the Iranian Embassy Siege. In that article they include hostages i.e. civilians.
2. The assumption that all combatant were Sikh Militant. References in the article clearly point to the fact that the Nihang guards were embroiled in the conflict as well. They are guardians of the temple and will fight anyone. They were nothing to do with the MIlitants under Bhindranwala.
3. On casualties, their are WP:Reliable sources on this and Independent sources. I don't know where the 8000 figure has come from.

Thanks SH 10:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, you misread what I said. I'm not saying you shouldn't include casualties in the article. By all means, make a section that provides information about the various human rights abuses and civilian casualties the army committed. But it should not be included in the "results" section of the infobox. The Iranian embassy siege DOES NOT have casualties included in the results section of the infobox. The results section is supposed to highlight the aftermath of the operation, and who won the battle. Please read Template:Infobox military conflict . OK, sure, include the Nihang guards, and remove the 8000 figure. JDiala (talk) 11:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the above points made by user Sikh history that most points made by user JDiala fall into WP:OR as well as violation of other rules too. User JDiala has his own definition of militant and how can you add every single armed person into militant category. If we do so ( as stated above by JDiala that Nihung Guards that actually fought in the battle would already fall into the category of Sikh militants) then every single baptized Sikh is a militant because they wear/carry sword (Kirpan) all the time, but on the other hand it's legal under Indian Constitution. It should be neutral version not Indian or Sikh version of the Operation Blue Star. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, sure, you can have Nihung Guards. My main objection now is the civilian casualties in the results infobox, and I addressed that in my above comment. JDiala (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Even the word militant endorse one specific (Indian) point of view and on the other hand, word Khalsa also endorse other point (Sikh) of view. I oppose usage of both words and instead other neutral word should be used to describe those persons. Thanks Theman244 (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Those fighters meet the exact definition of "militant"(Oxford Dictionary: "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause"; remember they had an military-grade armory set up in a place of worship and were terrorizing the Punjab just because the Anandpur resolution wasn't being passed), and all WP:Reliable sources refer to them as Sikh militants. None of them refer to them as the Khalsa. The word militant does not endorse the Indian point of view in any way. If I wanted to endorse the Indian point of view, I'd refer to them as extremists or terrorists. JDiala (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a similar Info-box to the one in the Iranian Embassy Siege. I really do think much of this comes under WP:LAWYER but if it keeps everyone happy, that under one info box we have all the results under seperate headings than I'm OK with that. Thanks SH 08:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The Iranian Embassy Siege's infobox is identical to the one on this page. I'm happy as long as civilian casualties is removed from the MAIN infobox under the RESULTS section. As I said, other than that, you can devote an entire section to the civilian casualties on the page itself if you please. JDiala (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems fairly clear that you have strong personal views on this subject. To characterize this as an "Indian tactical victory" as you have done is rather inappropriate, for a variety of reasons. Sikhs are Indians, for one, even if it was a group of Sikhs that favor secession. Futhermore, it trivializes the Sikh attitudes by reducing the matter to some sort of normal military conflict. That is why mentioning the high civilian casualties is important as they are a part of why the operation is infamous, since it was an assault on a place of worship that resulted in such casualties.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I guess you could say that. Not quite as strong as someone who'd want to name the Sikh militants as the "Khalsa", though. And I agree with you on the Indian Tactical Victory point. That was carelessness on my part. You can change that to "Indian Army Tactical Victory" or "Neutralization of the Golden Temple Complex". Do that however you please, as long as it signifies who won the battle. Sure, it was not a "normal" military conflict, but it was a battle nonetheless. Almost all battles are sensitive emotion-ridden topics, and the use of incorrect wording may suggest bias. It's our responsibility to resolve anything like that. Again, you failed to respond to any of my complaints. For one, the number of civilian casualties is inconclusive. Secondly, numerous battles are infamous for a high number of civilian casualties, yet I don't see Wikipedia editors don't pandering to them. JDiala (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A good point on the "Indian Tactical Victory". In my mind, it was infamous. India and it's citizens (Hindu's Sikhs, Muslim etc) were lossers all round. Indira Gandhi ends up geting killed, riots in India's major cities. Terrorism campaigns. Tensions worsen with Pakistan. Islamic extremists strike etc etc. It can probably be traced back to this one decision. I would have taken the UN offer of mediation if I were Gandhi....bu I digress.... Maybe we should put something like "Militants defeated". Thanks SH 15:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say something more like "Militants cleared out of temple complex" as that was the objective of the operation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. Thanks SH 20:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)}

Who changed it back to Khalsa? That one citation is clearly WP:FRINGE and virtually every other citation refers to them as Sikh Militants. JDiala (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually you deleted Nihangs as well. I reverted back to Sikh Militants. If this edit war persists, I'm going to stop edits indefinitely. Thanks SH 17:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

No, actually I just forgot to add them back. You wanted the Nihangs, so you can add them freely. Why don't you say anything to the person who changed it to Khalsa?JDiala (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am yet to see any response from an editor on the high civilian casualty-infobox issue. If no one has a reasonable, rational objection to me removing it, why can't I remove it? This is admin-totalitarianism. JDiala (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Why casualties should not be removed

• Huffington Post. Remembering the Massacre of Sikhs in June of 1984. The number of civilians murdered in Operation Bluestar remains unknown. While the most conservative estimates place the number of casualties around 675, independent and reputable sources estimate a minimum of 10,000 casualties. Joyce Pettigrew reports that a senior police officer in Punjab assessed the number of casualties as closer to 20,000. S.M. Sikri, former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, elaborates by describing Operation Bluestar as a "massive, deliberate and planned onslaught to the life, property and honor of a comparatively small, but easily identifiable minority community." [3]

• #2 in 10 political disgraces by India Today. It was a political disaster and an unprecedented act in Indian history. Its aftermath and the increased tensions led to assaults on the Sikh community in India.[4]

• BBC. Sikhs around the world remember it as their very own 9/11, their worst trauma in modern history, Operartion Blue Star, the storming of the Golden Temple in Amritsar.[5]

• Indira Gandhi regretted Operation Blue Star, Emergency. Regarding Operation Blue Star, Dhawan said she was told that no damage would be done to the structure of Golden Temple and there will be no loss of human lives before she had given the nod for the operation. Dhawan admitted that the decision to conduct Operation Blue Star was undoubtedly unfortunate, which was regretted by Gandhi also.[6] Thanks Theman244 (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

None of these are responses to any of my statements. Your first reason offers independent sources by various individuals reporting fringe theories, and it further clarifies my point that the number of casualties is, in fact, unknown. Your second reason is completely irrelevant to the discussion. Your third reason is also irrelevant, just because Sikhs consider it a disaster that does not mean it objectively was nor does it offer a reason as to why "high civilian casualties" should be included in the main infobox. There are numerous political disasters, and numerous events which groups of people consider "their 9/11", but Wikipedia does not pander to them. Also, Indira Gandhi's opinion is highly irrelevant. Again, NO other military operation or battle on Wikipedia lists high civilian casualties in the results section of the main infobox, regardless of what the opinion of any individual, group of individuals or news agency may be concerning that operation or battle. Why should OP blue-star be an exception? By all means, create a section on this page talking about the civilian casualties and purported human rights violations, but like every other article on Wikipedia, not on the main infobox.JDiala (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

High civilian causalities (gross human rights violation) is one of the main reason that this operation is still considered controversial.

Theman244 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

As I stated, numerous battles and/or operations are notorious for high civilian casualties. This battle had official figures put the number of civilians and militants killed during the operation as 493. This includes militants AND civilians. The number of only civilian casualties is unknown. If we say a quarter of those deaths are civilians, which would be a reasonable estimate considering there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that the army purposely tried to kill civilians on purpose, that would amount to about a 120 civilians dead. The ratio of civilian-non-civilian deaths is unexceptional compared to other battles. Now, other sources you may have stating the civ. casualties were higher are generally WP:Fringe and do not conform to WP:Reliable. This is how WP:Fringe works. The Indian government's side is, as much as it may disappoint you, to be taken, since it is official. Just like with 9/11, the American government's official side is to be taken and WP:Fringe conspiracy theories are dismissed as such. JDiala (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

It should definatly be Khalsa, as the only difference between Sikh militants and Khalsa are that the later are baptized and since they were baptized and did not break their 'rehat' by doing one of the 4 'bujer kureyat' nor were the excommunicated from the Akal Takht they are and will always be the Khalsa. Here is an image taken just before the attack of those Belligerents to show that they were the Khalsa.

The Khalsa https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/p480x480/422289_426126644106660_211283410_n.jpg

As it's been over a week and I have yet to receive a response, I shall proceed and implement what I outlined above. Also, to the poster above, the Khalsa issue has been addressed. They may have been members of the Khalsa, but just because they share a common trait, that doesn't mean we should refer to them as that. We could also logically call them "Human", "Black-Haired men" or "Indians", but that would not be logical as it is much to vague to provide meaningful information concerning this event. The word "Khalsa" is a a strictly religious term, and using it would be an extreme generalization and many Sikhs would rather not be associated with these people. That is why Khalsa is not an appropriate term to use. Even User:Sikh-history agrees with me on this. Refer to WP:Commons. JDiala (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Who says that Sikhs dont want to be associated with these people?? I dont know why you have that view and would be surprised to find a survey or a actual fact to show your viewpoint until then Khalsa is a much better term. Your edits are against neutrality, of course the Indian government is going to make it look to their advantage, this is why all the editors are constantly telling you to use a UN or 3rd party source instead. I am going to have to add back the 5000 causalitiesJujhar.pannu (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Surveys don't discount the fact that calling them "Khalsa" is a blatant generalization. The editors on this page are mostly Sikh, so on the contrary, I'm the one bringing more neutrality to this page. The fact that "Khalsa" was even on this page prior to my arrival is a testament to the fact that this page was always highly biased towards the militants. Since you brought a credible source for the 5000 figure, I won't remove that. The 'high civilian casualties' I will remove, however. Even though 5000 is supposedly high, the estimates were done by journalists, and they are not official. Since we don't know the actual number of civilian casualties, and combined with the fact that civilian casualties are not ever included in the results section of the main infobox, I feel it is appropriate to remove them from the results section. You can keep them in the casualties section, though. I addressed this a week ago on this talk page, and unless you can respond to it now, I have no reason to not to. JDiala (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

JDiala is correct on the Khalsa point. Thanks SH 15:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't write in big writing. This is a joke and there is no concrete evidence to say that Khalsa isn't an inappropriate term here. This is very very very baised now eg "Result: Militants cleared out of temple complex" The Akal Takht is not a temple. The Sikhs were using the Akal Takht for exactly, precisely, completely, correctly, definitely, explicitly, expressly, faithfully, faultlessly, for a fact, for certain, for sure, in every respect, indeed, just, literally, methodically, no mistake, on the dot what it was built for. Its quite absurd to call the Khalsa, militants because they have weapons. The Khalsa is an official term and it is very derogatory and biased to say that Guru Gobind Singh made Sikh militants in 1699 rather than Guru Gobind Singh made the Khalsa. The Khalsa commented nothing against the 4 prohibitions and it was the Indian government who came and attacked them because quite frankly because of their growing power. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 05:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Golden temple is referred as temple, if you want change it to "Result: Militants cleared out of gurdwara complex". Above arguments given are that a handful of people can not be representative of a an entire community. They were not some officially elected people. Using khala for the militants can be derogatory for the rest of sikhs. What Guru Gobind had done that time was the need of hour, it doesn't mean one can carry weapon inside religious places today. The kirpan used by baptized sikhs is also ceremonial. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

whle writing this I see that you have reverted my revert of your edit. Per WP:BRD , after one revert one should do discussion, so you should not have reverted my edit. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 05:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

False False and False, Akal Takht is not a temple please understand that and reply to my recent comments on your talk page. Our goal is to get RID of the propaganda and biased views. Honestly if you were serious when writing that my case has been justified and you have a lot to learn about Sikhi and the Khalsa at a basic level to the least. Please dont call the Khalsa Khala I find that offence and rude, you did this at least 4 times. My recent edit seems to capture the essence of what happened in a quick and easy fair way. It seems that your just supporting your friend rather than caring about the article because of your lack of knowledge and carelessness. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey Jujhar.pannu, are you going to behave and remain civil ? then we can carry on the discussions.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I have left you a message on your talk page please reply to continue discussions. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If Sikh militants become baptized they become part of the Khalsa. Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale was a baptized sikh and he told other Sikhs to become baptized before working with him. The only way someone can be considered not a part of the Khalsa is if they (4 Bujer Kurets):

• Cut their hair
• Adultery or sexual relationship outside marriage
• Eating non-jatka meat.
• Consume any kind of intoxicants

To say that they don't represent the Khalsa because of a personal opinion is POV and the argument would be just as silly to say that they don't represent Sikhs so they should just be militants according to that absurd point of view and cant change the fact that those baptized sikhs were baptized. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any reference which says that every baptized sikh represent Khalsa and his action can be considered to be done by Khalsa? And can you follow talk page guidelines and indent your posts properly. --Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 13:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Bhindernwale strictly and explicitly said many times that every militant must be baptized., meaning be a part of the Khalsa which are baptized Sikhs. "He inspired them to become Amritdhari (bapitized) and Shasterdhari (carrying weapons). Without undergoing that process Sikh could not be transformed into true Khalsa and without keeping arms he could neither defend himself nor the Khalsa Panth." If someone wanted to help him the first thing we would say was to become baptized and he clearly did mean he wanted baptized Christians or baptized Muslims. "For Bhindranwale, the only true Sikh was an amritdhari willing to martyr himself for the Khalsa panth by fighting against its 'enemies'.".

"After those who accepted the Sikh religion, were baptized and they were called the Khalsa".

The Amrit ceremony is literally and initiation into the Khalsa and Khalsa = Amritdhari and Amritdhari Sikh = Khalsa, also Guru Panth = Group of Khalsa and Group of Khalsa = Guru Panth.

If five or more baptized Amritdhari Sikhs of the Khalsa are present they represent the actions of the entire Khalsa, "It signified that the Guru and the Panj Pyaras, and, for that matter, the whole of the Khalsa, were one in spirit and hence coequal in terms of authority, ideology and cause. Implied in this was the motivation provided to the Khalsa to initiate people into the Order of the Khalsa and do other things on Guru's behalf. Following their example any five baptized Sikhs could constitute Panj Pyaras at any place any time. In fact, the institution fo Panj Pyaras was neither fixed nor exclusive."

Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

While I study the books you linked here, note that my question was rather of curiosity. It doesn't discount the fact that they are refereed as militants in multiple newspapers etc, which is WP suppose to use. Also you should wait for other people to respond instead of changing the article to your preferred version.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 01:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

In all regards you should respect the progressive work being done to an article instead of reverting everything an editor does you need to only change the things that the discusion is going on about or with what you disagree with rather than reverting everything, eg the image caption, and other points such as the Sikh reference library being burned, and notes about the akal takht not being a temple but rather a political center. This is very unfair editing you dont revert an edit and then do research you first look at the facts and then you change it if you have concrete evidence. It was originally Khalsa, and then it was changed and then controversy started why not go back and leave it to Khalsa and then change it if there is a consensus rather than leave it something that continues to cause controversy. The fact remains Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale was a baptized sikh and he told other Sikhs to become baptized before working with him and that militants may describe a group of people with guns but if they all have the same ideology and appear in the same attire and have been initiated they are classified under a more specific group and in this case that is the Khalsa. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

---

1. You should have split your edits. I think someone else had also told you to do so.
2. The so called progressive work is hardly progressive. You are already in debate with TDA over your other edits. and there also without developing an consensus, you ran to edit to your preferred version.
3. Then you edit warred with TDA.
4. It was earlier khalsa and then on 3rd Aug above this thread was started and by 10th August all the involved editors had an agreement and a consensus reached and it was changed to sikh militants.
5. The discussion went dormant for about 3 weeks.
6. On 31 you revived the discussion which will be rather consider as new discussion. And most of the editor who participated earlier agreed to not use khalsa.
7. Even if it is assumed for a moment that Bhindrawale and his associate represented entire Khalsa. They still were militants. This was not a war between two countries. But rather a countries's army operation to safeguard its own territory.
8. And of course that in all the newspaper it is used as Sikh militants, so that should be used here.
9. If you want a wider opinion from people. you can start an WP:RFC. RFC will invite editor totally un involved editor to comment on the topic. If you wish I can help you start one.--Vigyani_talk^{ਯੋਗਦਾਨ} 07:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I purpose to change the infobox to Khalsa Militants as it has been changed to it numerous times after September 2013 and it is more accurate for the following reasons: A a matter of fact is Sikhs are not required to keep long hair but it is the Khalsa that are required to keep long hair. It is a well-known fact that Sant Jarnail Singh Bhinderanwale was a member of the Khalsa. It is also a well-known fact that his followers were devote members of the Khalsa. He addressed his Khalsa audience as “Khalsa Ji” The media twisted the movement the started to get more rights for Punjabis to say that their goal was the creation of Khalistan (The Place of The Khalsa). Therefor it is more than obvious to make it Khalsa militants rather than Sikh militants.

The previous debate about this term was if to make it Khalsa or Sikh militants but this is a new approach to call it Khalsa militants the people who started this debate had very dubious intentions and wanted to change the infobox from “Khalsa” to “Terrorists” initially. I do not believe that there was ever a strong consensus if any as Vigyani mentioned above, it was at most between 3 people and those people used dirty tactics and were consequently banned. The reasons for changing from the Khalsa were very poor and when shown some basic research prove to be invalid - The reasons as stated above in this thread were “Not all Sikhs viewed the militants at Khalsa” and “The Khalsa put weapons in a temple and thus could not be considered Khalsa”. Once a Sikh becomes a Khalsa the only way to become demoted is to commit one of the four kureyats (cardinal sins) and not go pesh (meet back with the Khalsa to accept punishment for committing those 4 cardinal sins). There is no source or reference that would state that Sikhs did not consider them Khalsa or anything of the sort. Infact quite the opposite as Sant Jarnail Singh Ji is often viewed as a hero around the Gurdwara around the world and his victory is celebrated with utmost respect and praise of being Khalsa. Keeping weapons in the Guru Khar (House of the Guru or another word of the Gurudwara) is a established tradition since the times of Guru Hargobind Singh Ji.. (about a century before the Khalsa was created) Jujhar.pannu (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Well within the precincts of Sikhism..." what does this mean?

I noted the following sentence in the lead, and I do not understand it: "Bhindranwale was accused of amassing weapons in the gurudwara in order to start a major armed uprising. These reasons are contested by most Sikh scholars who claim that the Akal Takhat is a temporal seat and keeping weapons in gurudwaras is well within the precincts of Sikhism."

What does this mean? First, "precincts" is, according to my dictionaries, a geographical (an area of some sort) or architectural (walls or other structures establishing such an area) term. What does it mean here? Second, even if you assume this means Sikhism condones ownership of large amount of weapons, that still is completely orthogonal to the aforementioned accusation it is supposed to disprove (that the guy stockpiled weapons to start an uprising), and this sentence seems completely meaningless. But then, I'm not a native speaker; maybe I've missed something. So - what does this mean? Wefa (talk) 16:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If noone can come up with an explanation, I will delete this nonsensical sentenceWefa (talk) 13:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

another month, no explanation. Sentence removed. Wefa (talk) 18:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Precedents means code of conduct, or guidelines of how to be a Sikh and in this context the Guru tells the Sikhs to be armed and able to defend one selves. Thus there our militaristic bunga's built around the temple in the form of towers. In fact the Akal Takht used to be called Akal Bunga. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean sikhs have right to keep AK-47 and gernades inside Gurdwaras. There is no inline citation for this statement.  Dr meetsingh  Talk  16:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes by all means. Sikhs view weapons as something different from the western world. They say weapons bring peace to saints and fear to evil minded people. Now the laws of the Nation obviously in most cases wont allow Sikhs to keep guns without licences and since Sikhs live in that nation they have to obey the laws of the nation. But weapons are within the precedents of Sikhism and I have added references and removed the "according to whom" as the Akal Takht is a temporal authority and it is not needed to pinpoint who says that as it falls under commonsense, because it is a basic fact about the religion. If you feel that more than 5% of Scholars dont believe that Akal Takht is a temporal authority I can readd the "according to whom". Jujhar.pannu (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC).

The statement which reads in lead section "Bhindranwale was accused of amassing weapons in the gurudwara in order to start a major armed uprising. These reasons are contested by most Sikh scholars who claim that the Akal Takhat is a temporal seat and keeping weapons in gurudwaras is well within the precincts of Sikhism."

1. There is no substantial basis, Who accused Bhindrawale?

2. most Sikh scholars are weasel word please read WP:WEASEL. Dr meetsingh  Talk  05:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed you removed that paragraph.. can you please add a sentence back about something stating that the Akal Takhat being a temporal head of the Sikhs or something like that? If you got time and agree that work would be much appreciated.Jujhar.pannu (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Lede

Why are there so many citations? (re: WP:MoS etc) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Links modified on main page

Please review the links modified on the main page...—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Special Air Service

The Accuracy dispute template is funny, everybody know that, the SAS advice the Indian government. Put that template in fact is a not neutral POV. Why some sources are good for some articles but not accuracy for others??-BBC, The Guardian, etc,etc--152.170.24.22 (talk) 19:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Indian military casualties

When I last edited the article the casualties cited for the Indian military were '83 killed' (with no mention of injuries), however a recent edit by User:Materialscientist changed that to '700 dead'. That figure seemed unrealistically high to me but I saw his edit mentioning it was restoring the old figure (although the citation referring to the lesser casualty figure was not removed) so I went to older revisions and did see the 700 claim. I decided to investigate the casualty figures and could not find any sources using the higher claim, but I found multiple sources claiming '83 killed, 220 injured' (the Indian government estimate). As to avoid an edit war I suggest using the Indian government's estimate but making it clear that it is the Indian government estimate (to attempt to maintain neutrality). EDIT:I see that this was being discussed in the page already, and that it's a heated issue. - Sunomi64 (talk) 11:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

Why is some sick bot bent on denoting the Army casualty figures at 7000 whereas total army deployed was around 1000? Why isn;t Wiki administrator taking any action on them for this repeated agonizing post. I am tired of editing it again and again. There were 83 casualties on army side and total of 350-400 combatants were killed on the belligerent's side. Why is this indigestible to some? Shashank5988 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)shashank5988 Just discovered that the casualties from an Indian Army official website is 136 dead. So, the infobox needs to be changed. Please follow the link "http://indianarmy.nic.in/Site/martyrs/home.aspx" and select the "OP BLUE STAR" from the drop down menu. All the names of the dead is listed. Hope there shall be no more controversy on it, as it is an official Indian Army website. Also this shall bring a tag non-legitimacy or a misinformation campaign by General K S Brar through his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by All accounts taken (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I strongly believe the "8000 civilian casualty" figure should be removed. That figure is simply impractical and unsubstantiated. Also, why do you dislike it when I use Indian sources, yet you yourself also use them? JDiala (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There were around at least 5000 Sikh causalities there at Harmandir Sahib complex, The Mangee Sahib, (hotel like building) Guru Nanak Newas (another hotel like building) and 83 other buildings were completely destroyed from the inside with bombs shifting the ceiling fans etc.. you can add up the numbers. Hostages were shot dead and woman and children were killed. Try to think about how many pilgrimages are normally at Harmander Sahib.. 80,000 to 200,000 daily visitors. 3rd party sources (non sikh and non indian) normally state 5000 civilian causalities the US Government states around 20,000 Sikhs were killed in all the attacks during June including Harmandir Sahib and the 150 other Gurdwaras around Punjab that were attacked. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, show me the WP:Reliable sources. Indian Government sources are *official* sources. There are "third party sources" for virtually every event; however, official sources are the only ones to be used. For example, some third party/independent source may state that the casualties during the September 11 attacks were 10,000, or that it was a conspiracy theory, but these sorts of hypotheses are dismissed on Wikipedia because of WP:Fringe. JDiala (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem is of Neutrality, and thus the most fair way is not to judge who is right and who is wrong but to include both sides. This is not a Fringe theory because numerous Governments, eg Australia, UK, Canada, America are saying that the Indian government is distorting what happened, why do you think there was a media blackout? A Fringe theory is much much much more low level. Please read WP:Fringe Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources for the claim that numerous governments believe the Indian government is distorting what happened? The media blackout was for an obvious reason; if Sikhs in the Punjab knew what was going on at Amritsar, they would have went there by the thousands with weapons and the casualties would have been much higher. The army you despise so much did this to prevent more Sikhs from dying. JDiala (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Contradictory figures. At one point the article says that casualty estimates run as high as 5,000 and later in the casualty section it says it's 20,000.

though some independent claims run as high as 5000.

Some suggest that civilian causalities numbered 20,000.

Need to choose one as the maximum figure or say something along the lines of "some claim that actual casualties were in the thousands." Ileanadu (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

intentions are a hard thing to prove since it requires you to 'weigh and judge' contradictory statements by those in charge, rather than picking or choosing which side to represent pass both sides and all statements made by the same person and what their true motive was. and your claim that thousands would have gone is also needing evidence, WP needs proof not conjecture and speculation, it seems it is drifting from facts to speculation of intent and reason which does not seem helpful 70.69.172.92 (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Fire in the Library

Mark Tully and Satish Jacob's "criticism" of the Army in their book Amritsar: Mrs. Gandhi's Last Battle There is a line in the article - "Mark Tully and Satish Jacob criticized the Army for burning down the Sikh Reference Library in Amritsar: Mrs. Gandhi's Last Battle, stating that this was done to destroy the culture of the Sikhs."

Looking it up in the book, the relevant section (pages 176,177):

One of the most controversial incidents of the whole operation was the burning of the Golden Temple library with its invaluable manuscripts, including copies of the Guru Granth Sahib handwritten by some of the Gurus.
...
Many Sikhs believe that the army deliberately set the library on fire. For instance, Ashok Singh, who runs the Sikh Institute in Chandigarh, said, 'Any army which wants to destroy ? nation destroys its culture That's why the Indian army burnt the library.'
...
The conflict between the account given by the officer who witnessed the burning of the library and the White Paper, inevitably casts doubt on the official version. Nevertheless it is very difficult to believe that an army which did obey orders to refrain from firing at the Golden Temple itself would have deliberately set a building as important as the library on fire.

2604:6000:d084:2100:18c5:d343:cc0f:3180 (talk · contribs) has pointed out that John Waller in Hitch Hiking to India has made this claim. While it may be true, we can clearly see from the quoted text that John Waller made a mistake. Tully and Jacob made no such statement. Ankit2 (talk) 04:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, I have now removed that source misrepresentation, Thanks for pointing it out. Several sources have attributed the library fire to the shells used during the operation to clear up the adjoining rooms in the temple complex. --DBigXray 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)