Talk:Operation Blue Star/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Citations in the lead section

The lead section contains a lot of citations, most from primary sources like newspapers articles published during and after Operation Bluestar. Many of these citations are superfluous when we already have good quality secondary sources which are cited in the main body of the article. I am planning to remove such unnecessary citations if there is no opposition. Ankit2 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there is an apparent WP:REFBOMBing or a non RS source Sources should not be removed. I believe removing a reliable source hampers the WP:V. They do help in fact checking and quickly. This article attracts a lot of vandalism, which makes the sources even more important.--DBigXray 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

According to the some sources, the number of dead military personnel was at least 700. The number is based on a speech of Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister after Indira, in which he said that over 700 soldiers died during the operation. Rajiv Gandhi later withdrew that statement.

References

Hi Ankit, I have completely removed this from the article, This I believe is un-necessaary since even the Source does not approve his statement. it is no longer valid and cannot be added to article. I have moved it here, in case any future controversy starts on the number of 700 military casualty. Hope you are ok with my reason. thanks.--DBigXray 21:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The section Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties and the infobox are not in agreement. needs to be verified and updated accordingly. --DBigXray 23:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Recent Series of POV Edits

There have been a recent series of POV edits to this article starting in June. Diff. Military history information was added to the article which I'd like to keep, but while discussions are underway I'd like to stick with WP:OR for contentious topics.

Here are some changes that at first glance don't improve the article, but rather present a POV viewpoint:

1. (Addition) By December 1983, Bhindranwale and his followers had made the Golden Temple complex an armoury and headquarter for extremist activites
2. (Removal) Operation Woodrose was launched in the Punjab countryside where Sikhs, specifically those carrying a kirpan and protesting
3. (Change) 492 civilians killed civilians dead
4. (Removal) some suggest that civilian casualties numbered 20,000 and military casualties were 5,000

--Elephanthunter (talk) 06:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Hi EH good to see you on this page as well after my edits.
  

1. What is your suggestion for this ? The LA times mentions it as Terrorism.

2. This needs a verification first. In addition, the mention of Kirpan even if it may be mentioned in the original source does not make it worthy of addition. "All" the sikhs carry Kirpans. It is mandatory as per the religion. Check Kirpan.

3. I have changed it to Civilian casualties. It should be acceptable I believe.

4. This text is attributed to WP:BLOGS, hence it cannot be restored into the article. --DBigXray 13:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1. We can still use the LA Times source for the events that occurred, but leave out POV wording. Whether the Khalistan movement is a terrorist organization is a matter of debate.

2. Page 423 states that the army was handing out pamphlets informing soldiers that Sikhs with long, flowing beards and a Kirpan were "dangerous people" and "to be watched". The reader can reasonably interpret this as targeting Sikhs carrying Kirpans that are not entirely concealed, perhaps to distinctly profile them as Sikh.

3. I agree with the word "civilian casualties" is better than "civilians dead" or "civilian victims".

4. That's a good point. I did not initially realize that was the Huffpost blog and not an article. Apparently they got the stat wrong too. After consulting the original source referenced by the blog, I've updated with those stats (10,000 casualties) and added the citation.

As a side note, I want to thank you for "Operation Sundown", which was a particularly good addition to this article. There's an argument to be made that the Indian government was presented with a difficult situation and did what it could to mitigate casualties. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. This article was once nominated as a "Warfare good articles nominee". It looks like it failed due to bias. I think if all sides are presented fairly (leaving opinions like "victim", "extremist", "massacre" as things to be determined by the reader), this could easily make the list of good warfare articles. There's a really interesting story here. Also the stats are all over the place. Human rights groups / Sikh organizations lean on the high end of Sikh casualties, and the Indian government leans on the low end, but both are to be expected. We could achieve consistency / sanity by presenting all sides backed by WP:RS with appropriate descriptions, so the reader knows where those stats were sourced. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Militant is perfectly neutral word, and should stay in the article.

2. Next what we will describe the 5Ks in this article ? Fact that Sikhs were arrested is a reasonable WP:NPOV inclusion of the said source.

3. Good.

4. Kindly share the link or the Quoted text you are referring to per WP:V--DBigXray 19:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

1. The text is about activities of Bhindrawale and not Khalistan movement as whole. Any larger debate about the nature of that movement should not be used to decide what to label Bhindrawale's activies. Wikipedia's job is to provide the scholarly consensus on a topic, which means that if reliable sources say that Bhindrawale's activities were extremist then we should write as such. To remove a sourced assertion you should provide an equally or more reliable source which contradicts this.

Ankit2 (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree with User:Ankit2 Also on Point 4. above the Quoted organization is not a valid and reliable source. I am sure you will find a lot of wild allegations and numbers out there on blogs and few books as well that claim such and such organization quoted such and such number. This article cannot be a repository of all such wild allegations. I am not against adding a reliable figure from neutral third party, but it does not have to be a random pick from the sea of allegations. The number and the source has to be widely popular and reliable, vetted by multiple third parties. --DBigXray 17:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

hi, With this revert you have again removed sourced contetn and added back poorly sourced things back to the article. The edit summaries are not enough justification. Kindly explain each of your edit pointwise here. Such mass reverts without proper discussion is disruptive editing. and no edit summary does not count as discussion. --DBigXray 19:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The word extremist is inherently judgemental, which is against Wikipedia policy. WP:VOICE states "Prefer nonjudgemental language". Collins Dictionary says of the word extremist: "If you describe someone as an extremist, you disapprove of them because they try to bring about political change by using violent or extreme methods." It is better that we use language that does indicate disapproval.

It's worth mentioning that the country in which you reside, India, censors media that paints militant Khalistan movement in a positive light.

One of your additions was a justification for the Indian government's timing. I agree such a justification would add to the article. But your addition was the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim of a planned massacre of Hindus across all the villages of Punjab, made by KPS Gill, who was the Director General of Police and not the army. It appears as though Gill's version of events are vague and in conflict with the army's less extraordinary explanation. I've added General Brar's explanation for the timing instead. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:VOICE is against editrorializing. It's not editorializing if the sources themselves call Bhindrawale extremist. You haven't cited any third party reliable sources that say that Bhindrawale's activities were not extremist.

You point about censorship does not hold. Your example is about a movie, which cannot be cited as a source for wikipedia. There is no censor board for newspapers and books. In any case, Indian government has no control over foreign journalists and academics, all of whom agree that Bhindrawale was an extremist. Ankit2 (talk) 03:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

1. No, WP:VOICE is not just against editorializing. I'm not sure what to say except that you should reread that section.

2. The Indian government can and has banned books. Perhaps you haven't heard of Soft Target, which describes how India infiltrated Canada to discredit the Khalistan movement?

3. You can totally cite movies.

4. All journalists and academics agree, I suppose, except the ones who don't? It takes a simple Google Book search to come up with titles like The Gallant Defender and Amar Shaheed Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale: Martyr of the Sikh Faith. And there are plenty of journalists who manage to write about Bhindranwale without mentioning the word "extremist". But I suppose you mean No true Scotsman style... that either a writer believes Bhindrawale an extremist or they're not a real academic or journalist. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I read the section. I see no problem with extremist if reputed sources say it.

2. As I said, Indian government cannot censor foreign publications. And there is plenty of work on this topic by foreign academics and journalists.

3. I am yet to see a movie being cited for a topic like the present article.

4. Of the two books you cited, one is published by European Institute of Sikh Studies, a charity and the other by Sikh Student Federation, an activist group. None of them qualify as academic or journalist sources. You only help my case that no reputable academic or journalist has sympathetic views of Bhindranwale.

Ankit2 (talk)

References

Number of deaths in the lead section.

The figure of 4,000 deaths have been attributed to Tully and Jacob. The source is "Reduced to Ashes - The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab - Final Report: Volume One". Looking it up, the number is supposedly from Amritsar: Mrs Gandhi's Last Battle. But looking through the book I found no such figure. The book says that 3,680 people were inside the temple at the start of the operation and counting those who escaped, surrendered or were killed by the army, 1600 were unaccounted for. I don't have access to Chand Joshi's book and cannot confirm whether that figure is right or not. For the time being I am removing the 4000 deaths figure and letting the 5000 deaths figure stay. Ankit2 (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• The book you are referring above claims Bluestar was "Diabolically concieved". This is just one example to show how religiously WP:BIASED that source is. Kindly do not add any information using that source.--DBigXray 22:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I meant the book is already used in the lead for the unofficial death counts. The 5000 death figure attributed to Chand Joshi is sourced from this book. It looks like you have access to Joshi's book. What figure did he put up for civilian casualties? Ankit2 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

• Then that source needs to be removed and teh fact attributed to this source has to be reviewed and attributed to the better source. No, I had left the figures untouched as they appear to be sourced. I was hoping I would get a better third party estimate source to replace this. Please note that Even Chand Joshi may not be a reliable source due to this Critical review of the book. Joshi as is his wont, walks the thin edge between myth and reality. If Joshi had merely stuck to available or acquired facts, this book could have redeemed his reputation. Instead, his irresistible penchant for flavouring his output with sensationalism proves his ultimate downfall. So Joshi needs to be replaced by a better source. --DBigXray 19:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
• I have removed the above source and the attributed text. --DBigXray 23:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that a single critical review of the book warrants removing the stat. I've added it back. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

• Kindly explain why you think it is a relaible source, Chand Joshi's book is full of such controversial things without any factual backing behind it. A wiki article is not a place to include multiple wild allegations. Only sources that have proper vetting and have factual proof to back them up can be added. To Quote the Critic The second book, Bhindranwale, Myth and Reality, is considerably more of a surprise, written, as it is by Chand Joshi, enfant terrible of The Hindustan Times. Joshi had very little to do with Punjab as far as his newspaper bosses were concerned but that has not deterred him from producing his own hastily cobbled-together quickie on the Punjab drama. --DBigXray 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

You started edit-warring with me to remove Joshi's stats (diff), where you referenced WP:CONSENSUS. We did not reach consensus on this topic. One book review does not make the book unreliable. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

We have presented the evidence and reason that it is unreliable. Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT what reason and source do you have to argue that it is indeed reliable and fit to be added to this controversial article to support a controversial figure ? --DBigXray 20:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sikhs were planning to murder Hindus in "all the villages across Punjab"?

If I understand correctly, this claim is from KPS Gill's 2017 book "Punjab: The Enemy Within". It appears WP:EXTREME and also in conflict with:

• The Indian government's justification
• General Brar's statement
• KPS Gill's own statements

Here are a few quotes from KPS Gill:

• "Operation Blue Star in Punjab and Operation Bajrang in Assam were not necessary"
• "Blue Star did not end this. It actually fuelled militancy. It must be brought on record that the army mishandled the operation itself, they chose the wrong day to do it, and thereafter they had Operation Woodrose in the villages, which was again very ill-thought-out."

Contrast this to the 2017 book "Punjab: The Enemy Within":

On the other hand, the government did have a strong explanation to go ahead with Operation Blue Star on a day that held great reverence for the Sikhs. It was simple. The government could not delay the arrest mission of Bhindranwale anymore, as he was going to be more aggressive in his approach towards Hindu killings.

It is said that he was about to launch a fierce movement intended to murder Hindus in all the villages across Punjab. With the rise in the killings before the Operation Blue Star started, the doubts of the government were taking a turn towards reality, preoccupied by fear.

— Sadhavi Khosla, K.P.S.Gill, Punjab : The Enemies Within : Travails of a wounded land riddled with toxins

This is very confusing. I see no other articles or sources referencing a planned massacre. If the timing was supposedly justified, why did KPS Gill repeatedly and heavily criticize the timing of Operation Blue Star up until the book? Why did India not use this as clear justification? And "It is said"? Really? It would be nice to have a source for this seemingly revolutionary piece of information.

In my mind, KPS Gill has demonstrated himself an unreliable source on this subject. We should either:

1. Mention both of KPS Gill's viewpoints and let the reader decide, or
2. Remove the KPS Gill's suggestion that there was a massacre

Thoughts?

References

---

1. Cherry picking random statement about Gill on the manner in which the Operation occurred and using it to infer there was no such plan of Hindu murders is clear WP:ANALYSIS and WP:SYNTH.
2. Link you shared saysKPS Gill says although necessary, Operation Blue Star was “mishandled”.
3. Clearly Gill like many others had his own opinion on ways of carrying out the Flushing out of Sikh Terrorists from the Golden Temple. It doesn't say anywhere That Gill refuted Bhindranwale's plan of Killing Hindus enmasse. Just because you are confused due to biased and contorted understanding of the topic, does not make the Author unreliable by any logic.
4. Not just Gill but Several independent and third party authors have mentioned this in their books. Are they all unreliable ? you cannot change history if WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT
5. Khushwant Singh[1] (one of the biggest critics of Operation Bluestar, who even returned his award to Government in Protest) has also said the same in his book [2] and so have 2 other authors in their books. Based on your logic anyone who is speaking uncomfortable truth Against these Sikh terrorists and their tactics is unreliable ? --DBigXray 21:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
6. Here are the excerpts from 3 major books on the topic all referring to Bhindranwale's plan to Massacre Hindus

I pondered over the matter for many days and many hours and reluctantly admitted that Hindus had some justification for their anger against Sikhs. The starting point was the emergence of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a leader. He used vituperative language against the Hindus. He exhorted every Sikh to kill 32 Hindus to solve the Hindu-Sikh problem. Anyone who opposed him was put on his hit list and some eliminated. His hoodlums murdered Lala Jagat Narain, founder of the Hind Samachar group of papers. They killed hawkers who sold their papers. The list of Bhindranwale's victims, which included both Hindus and Sikhs, was a long one. More depressing to me was that no one spoke out openly against him. He had a wily patron in Giani Zail Singh who had him released when he was charged as an accomplice in the murder of Jagat Narain. Akali leaders supported him. Some like Badal and Barnala, who used to tie their beards to their chins, let them down in deference to his wishes. So did many Sikh civil servants. They lauded him as the saviour of the Khalsa Panth and called him Sant.

- Author : Khushwant Singh

Perhaps, one of the reasons why the army was rather suddenly sent into the Golden Temple – I say suddenly because all along, the government was reluctant to send in the army – was the threat to kill all Congress (I) MPs and MLAs on 5 June and their plan to begin mass killing of Hindus in villages.

In my district, Balbera in Patiala four or five arthyas were killed hardly a fortnight before the army action; the mass killings had already started. In Model Town an architect, a doctor and other innocent Hindus were being killed. They aimed to kill more. Actually, they wanted to start a civil war between the Hindus and the Sikhs.

They were killing the Sikhs who had vocally opposed Bhindranwale and the idea of Khalistan.

- Amarjit Kaur

Bhindranwale was about to start a well-organised campaign to murder Hindus in villages throughout the Punjab. A senior official of the Home Ministry told Satish Jacob that intelligence officers had intercepted messages from Bhindranwale andShahbeg Singh instructing their followers to start killing 'en masse' on 5th June. He also said Bhindranwale had plans to kill all Punjabi MPs and Members of the State Assembly.

Mark Tully and Satish Jacob

References

Hmm... alright. You've convinced me with the reliable sources you have presented. Now, perhaps we need to update the number of Sikhs killed in the anti-Sikh riots? Currently in the lede it says 3,000 Sikhs were killed, but your quote above is from an article where Kushwant Singh says 10,000 Sikhs were killed. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Knowledge is power. I feel that, all these numbers gets you aroused isnt it ? I am sorry to break it out to you, This figure cant be added here. the 10k figure here is not a sourced data point but just a rhetorical figure to say that a large number of sikhs were killed in the Anti sikh riots that ensued Indira Gandhi's assassination. Also, There is a separate article for that riot. That figure is not for Bluestar casualty. --DBigXray 14:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Speculative NYT article

@Elephanthunter: Hi it is easier to discuss here on talk than on edit summeries. Please check Martha Crenshaw which clearly states bodies found inside Akaltakht. So does multiple other reliable sources including Marktylly and Cynthia Mahmud. the NYT article you are adding is full of speculations. it even says the terrorists BK and bhindranwale killed themselves. you should understand the importance of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. They are specially important for controversial articles and edits. in case of dispute only the reliable secondary sources are considered. The statement regarding the location of body is already reliably cited in the article. please see first. --DBigXray 19:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinionated article

This article is highly opinionated and lacks the neutrality that is required from a wikipedia article. Sounds like a emotionally charged person writing it. Lacks credibility from the onset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.117.5 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your feedback, based on your comments, lot of changes have been made to make the article conform to WP:NPOV, please feel free to share if you have more feedback to improve. --DBigXray 15:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Adding Memali Incident in see also

User:Dottasriel2000 Can you please explain why you keep on adding] the article Memali incident which is a totally unrelated case of siege to this one. You should read the policy MOS:SEEALSO before you comment a reply. If you do not reply or have no objection then I will remove this link you have added here, as it is not justified. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Casualty section

Can someone help find the exact number of civilian casualty. Right now Militant and Civilians are marked at 493. I suggest to have three title militant, civilian and army. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Blue_Star#Casualties Accesscrawl (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Accesscrawl, Problem is the militants were using civilians as Human Shields, and their dress matched with the civilian dress. So I can understand why Official sources did not declare separate militant and civilian casualties. There are some unofficial estimates for civilian casualties but they are unreliable and based on hearsay. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The official figure is intentionally inaccurate. Due to the Indian government's media lockdown during Operation Bluestar, hearsay is basically all we have to get close to an accurate figure. It's a grossly misleading to list the official figure in the header without mentioning that it was contested. --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Totally false and distorted account of historical events propably by some pro gandhi government element

I would not counter each and every statement in this narrative because whole plot is false. Bhindrawale never went to stop nirankaris. They we manipulating holy verses of Guru Granth Sahib and Singhs of sukhmani sahib jatha were sent there. Even K.S brar has given more true account than this.

I request Wikipedia to remove this story as whole of this is sham and misleading Jughraj Singh (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The content in the article is sourced to reliable third party books and scholarly publications. If you have reliable source for your claims please provide it here. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree! Upon further inspection, these sources have failed review. These turned out to be official government stats, placed without attribution in the summary. Thank you for your suggestion! --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Replace human shield claim of unknown origin with UK claim

The claim of human shields does not appear substantiated, and there's no source of who actually made this statement. I'm writing on the talk page to suggest that we replace the "human shield" claim with the more reliably sourced research performed by the UK into the results of this operation.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague attributed high civilian casualties to India diverging from UK military recommendations, attempting a full frontal assault on the militants.

This is a factual statement and secondary source (William Hague's interview of an elite SAS officer) covered by the BBC,[3] The Guardian,[4] Al Jazeera,[5] Reuters,[6] and Channel 4.[7]

This would, of course, deserve its own section on the page. I'm also suggesting we remove the "human shield" claim until we can find a WP:RS and origin of the claim. Until it is removed, I've added the "By whom" template. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please explain why you are proposing to add this primary source into the article. secondly your choice of words and deliberate misrepresentation of your own source is disturbing to say the least. --DBigXrayᗙ 06:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I've already explained why this is a secondary source. You are not making a good faith effort to explain your reasoning here, and you have reverted my changes multiple times as I address your concerns. If you are of the opinion WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, that's fine, but that is not reason to remove reliably sourced and extremely relevant material. Please make an effort to actually discuss this, or I will restore the material. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I am also genuinely curious, what about my own source is disturbing? Do you think present-day UK has a conflict of interest with India that might compromise such a report? -- Elephanthunter (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding your disturbing edit here

The source stated "a frontal assault was attempted, which contributed to the large number of casualties on both sides".

And you misrepresented it to "High civilian casualties were attributed to ... India diverging from UK military recommendations, attempting a full frontal assault on the militants".

Now please let me know if I should call this, a result of your "incompetence in comprehension" or a "malice against The Indian Army and Government" ? --DBigXrayᗙ 11:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

So, staying on topic, your only concern is the use of the word "civilian". Here is my new proposed sentence:

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague attributed high casualties to India diverging from UK military recommendations, attempting a full frontal assault on the militants.

Do you have any other suggestions? --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course, The Elephant in the room here is why should this content from a WP:PRIMARY source be added into the article? There are 2 parts of this question that needs to be addressed first.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've already discussed that above, so I'm assuming everything is good here. If that's all, I'm restoring the content. --Elephanthunter (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I asked,

1. why should this content from a WP:PRIMARY source be added into the article?
2. Why do you think this not a PRIMARY source?

And no the text above does not address this basic question. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Please desist from unilaterally adding disputed content into the article, On the next addition without WP:CONSENSUS I would be forced to seek admin intervention here. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I've already addressed that. We're not making any headway here. Since this is a dispute between two editors, I've requested input from 3PO. -- Elephanthunter (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Note I removed the by whom tag because the statement is clearly followed by a source (see the template documentation). (This is not a comment on the dispute.) --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fair. "Winning Wars amongst the People" cites another source for the statement, Rediff, which I do not have access to. I would genuinely appreciate if someone could drill down to the source tree to find the origin of the statement. In light of that change, I think I'd be fine with just additively placing the UK report after the human shield sentence. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

3O Response: Forgive me if I get anything wrong.

William Hague's report is a primary source on his own statements and findings but I guess what Elephanthunter is arguing is that it's arguably a secondary source on the conflict. However, personally I still wouldn't use it because the point being referenced seems fairly tangential.

We rely on secondary sources so we can have an external basis a) to discern what's noteworthy or important and b) to avoid disagreement over things which involve an element of interpretation or subjectivity. In this case, to treat his specific statements about the relative impact of the Indian Army's approach on the casualty rate as noteworthy, we'd want sources commenting on them specifically. The BBC article doesn't seem to do that. Instead, it gives the impression that the gist of it was about whether the UK holds any responsibility for the incident. (I think it would be better suited for the "Alleged British Involvement" section than the intro.) However, I haven't read the rest so if any of them are different please mention it.

Ultimately, I feel like the point you're trying to make is that the Indian Army's aggressive approach is also to blame, not just the militants using "human shields" (if you now agree on that line). That doesn't seem like a particularly outlandish position from what I've read so far so if that is what you're trying to do I would encourage you just to find a secondary source that explicitly discusses the Indian Military's approach and how much it contributed and use that instead. Best wishes, ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 02:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@ReconditeRodent: Thank you for taking the time to respond! If I come across something that's a more obvious secondary source we might revisit, but for now I'll leave this sentence out. -- Elephanthunter (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Biased nature of the belligerents list

I've been going back and forth with User:GSS over this. My changes adding the United Kingdom and Israel as belligerents on the Indian side were removed as they were not directly involved in the conflict, however Pakistan were also not directly involved (as per the citation given) so by that logic they should also be removed, at this point he referred me here. It is my opinion that the belligerents list should either show the allies and influences of both sides or of neither because as of now it is weighted to one side. Zebby123 (talk) 16:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd support dropping Pakistan from the belligerents list. While the citations do state that the Khalistan separatist movement was supported by Pakistan, I don't see them as belligerents during Operation Blue Star. The article talks about their support for the separatist movement and that's more than enough. UK and Israel influences are tenuous at best and should not be included.--regentspark (comment) 17:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a fair argument to include the British. An SAS officer in an official capacity worked with India in an advisory role. He performed ground reconnaissance and offered a plan which consisted of forces brought in on helicopters. The offered plan was ultimately not followed, but there was definitive cooperation between the Britain and India in planning an attack on the Golden Temple. Israel, on the other hand, is a different story. Israel trained Special Group commandos used in the attack, but the training occurred a whole year beforehand. I'm guessing the training had to do with the general threat of Pakistan and the ISI. So far I've found little to no reputable sources saying Israel was complicit in Operation Bluestar. --Elephanthunter (talk) 06:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@GSS: This is probably the thread the IP is referring to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Split out refs for WP:V?

We're citing a ~240 page book without page numbers. It might seem cleaner to reuse the ref, but it hurts verifiability. As users visit and dispute parts of the article, we should probably verify the reference and add more detailed info (page number, possibly a quote). Without a page number, verifying the source is difficult. On a somewhat related note, we should use the book citation template. It's used by most of the article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

June 1

Hello. So I see that the information that I added regarding June 1, 1984 was removed by the user @GSS. GSS has stated that ensaaf is not a reliable source but seems to not provide any context as to why they have taken this issue. Please provide more information why ensaaf is not reliable. Thank you. Ankhi88 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

The user @GSS states that Ensaaf is not a reliable source and continues to revert the section on June 1, 1984. When asked why, he states that it violates Wikipedia's rules regarding reliable sources, yet he has not yet explained how Ensaaf violates the rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GSS#August_2020

I will be reverting the change back until GSS can provide an adequate reason as to why Ensaaf is not a reliable source. Ankhi88 (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you don't have time to read and understand the policies before editing Wikipedia, then I have no interest to help you in pushing your POV edits. See WP:RS again. GSS ^💬 05:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If you took the time to actually review the citation, you would have seen that ensaaf was hosting the pdf for Reduced to Ashes: The Insurgency and Human Rights in Punjab. Kumar, Narayan K. Et. al. I will now directly quote to the book. Ankhi88 (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You are free to add back the contents if you can provide some third party reliable sources. GSS ^💬 05:20, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You are the one who is claiming that Ensaaf is not reliable. You then point me to a wikipedia page which has many different reasons for why a source can be unreliable. You are shifting the burden of proof on to me to prove why a source that I used is biased. This is backwards. You need to make a good faith effort at explaining why Ensaaf violates Wikipedia's policy towards unreliable sources. Ankhi88 (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has an article on that book,: Reduced to Ashes (book). Seems to be a reliable source from a human rights perspective. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

@TryKid: That's not how we judge the reliability of a source. The book is co-written by the director of ensaaf.org an organization that appears to have a close connection to Khalistan so I'm pinging @Abecedare: for a review. @Ankhi88 the simple answer to your comment is that ensaaf.org is not a news website. Also, as per off-wiki evidence, you appear to have a conflict of interest which you need to disclose. GSS ^💬 08:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

You haven't said anything yet. How is Ensaaf linked to the Khalistan movement? Its a human rights organization. Thats as ridiculous as saying that Amnesty International supports the Khalistan movement. Please provide evidence that Ensaaf actively promotes the Khalistan movement. Ensaaf's mission statement is as follows: "Ensaaf is a nonprofit organization working to end impunity and achieve justice for crimes against humanity in India, with a special focus on Punjab, by documenting abuses, bringing perpetrators to justice, and organizing survivors.Ensaaf means justice in many South Asian languages. Ensaaf has established an international reputation for innovative and effective advocacy, working with India's preeminent human rights attorneys and the world's foremost human rights organizations.https://ensaaf.org/mission/ Furthermore, by that logic, any citation which is used in this article that promotes the Indian perspective should also be removed. There are citations in this wikipedia page from KPS Gill, a person who has been condemned as a violator of human rights, yet there doesn't seem to be any issue relying on information from him. I just reviewed the Wikipedia page relating to conflict of interest. I have absolutely no clue how you would make that deduction. There is neither any information in this page about me, nor do I belong to any kind of third party organization. Ankhi88 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources you cited I have reverted your edits. The book "Reduced to Ashes" fails WP:HISTRS. It is published by the South Asia Forum for Human Rights so it should be considered as a primary source. It seems the book is a collection of account from the involved people and survivors so it could only be used as a source if that survivor's quote is needed somewhere, but not for historical facts in a controversial article. The second book "INDIA’S MAJOR MILITARY & RESCUE OPERATIONS" is a COPYVIO of Wikipedia (please see the banner above). So it is a questionable as well as WP:CIRCULAR source and should not be used. Please familiarize yourself with WP:HISTRS and use them in the articles. Kindly avoid using WP:PRIMARY sources to present claims as facts. GSS ^💬 19:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your analysis of the book is incorrect. The book "Reduced to Ashes" is a secondary source, not a primary source. If you took the time to read the citations at the bottom of the pages, you would see that the book relies on other books, reports and newspaper articles. Wikipedia defines primary sources as the following "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". The book "Reduced to Ashes" is not written by anyone involved with Operation Bluestar and it was published approximately 19 years after the event. I am agreeable to "India's Major Military and Rescue Operations" being removed as a source. You seem to have removed every other change that I made to the article as well without providing a reason. I will be reverting the change with the aforementioned citation removed.The other citations that I added will remain. Thank you. Ankhi88 (talk) 01:49, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@Fitindia Hello @Fitindia, can you please explain why you removed the additions that were made to the page? I will be reverting the page back. In the future please explain why you decided to remove content so that we can discuss everything in good faith. Thank you. Ankhi88 (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Just a procedural suggestion: Since this dispute is largely over the reliability of a single source, I would strongly recommend raising the issue of its reliability at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which exists for the purpose of addressing just that kind of issue. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

@Ankhi88, I have already pointed out the issues with the book Reduced to Ashes. The other book Gurdarshan ref says clearly that the publisher is Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar. it is a self published book by an org which is an involved party. The content that was added also violates WP:SYNTHESIS since you are cherry picking lines and then adding in as the result section. Please take time to read and follow these policies that I have linked for your benefit as you are a new contributor. After reading you should be able to understand what is expected of you. Also, please do not WP:EDITWAR on the article. GSS ^💬 11:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@GSS None of the points that you raised in respect to the "Reduced to Ashes" were valid as per the Wikipedia policies you were relying on. Not a single one. Rather than raise a counterpoint, you went ahead and removed the information once again. You did not raise any issues with the SGPC book, all of your points above relate to the book "Reduced to Ashes". You are accusing me of cherry picking lines. Every single line in this Wikipedia article is taken directly from the books they reference. I know because I have reviewed the majority of them where possible. In respect to the SGPC book, there are citations in this Wikipedia page which relies on sources from the Indian Army, KPS Gill, General Brar. These are parties which were obviously close to the events. There are citations in this Wikipedia page from from current day news articles. So you'd be agreeable that as per your own statements, those citations should be removed as well? You need to address my points. I have addressed each and every one of your complaints in good faith but you have shown that you refuse to talk things out and instead are reverting the page back to a version that you believe is accurate. This is not helpful in making this article neutral. For the record, I would like to state that I have not removed a single line of information from this Wikipedia page. I expect a response before you unilaterally decide to revert the information that I have added. I have already asked for meediation for this section. Furthermore, I will be referring all sources to the reliability notice board. Ankhi88 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@GSS You need to have a good faith discussion with me regarding your issues. There is nothing productive about raising an issue, having the person respond in good faith and then to go ahead and remove information unilaterally without further engaging in discussion. I have attempted to work with you in good faith but you are refusing and unwilling to work with me to help improve this page. I gave you responses to each and everyone one of your concerns and I expect the same professionalism from you as well. Thank you. Ankhi88 (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@GSS An uninformed, irresponsible characterization in order to stop edits you don't like, what else can be expected. Leave the evaluation of sources to those who actually know what they're talking about, you're out of your depth here. Learn what "primary" means.

Ankhi88, here's an alternative link you can use for the citation: [8] The book was simply linked to by Ensaaf, and was published one year before Ensaaf was even founded. (btw they address the desperate strategy of government officials trying to link human rights orgs to "terrorism" here).

Immediate accusations of conspiratorialism and "undisclosed interests" and alleging government accountability to be "Khalistani" violate WP:CIV and WP:AGF, and are now a recurring trend. If the edits leaned in the opposite direction, they would most likely have been ignored. Apparently, the actual primary accounts in support of the government narrative, or uncritical apologism thereof, which the article is littered with, are perfectly fine.

When Abecedare gets back, I'm sure he will approve of the source in some capacity. His determinations quite often contradict GSS' anyway. Sapedder (talk) 23:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Sapedder, Hello, nice to meet you. For "Reduced to Ashes", I changed the references to the actual book a while ago and @GSS still had issues with it. You can see from the record above that he keeps moving the goal posts. Ankhi88 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)50.67.201.236 (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Armed forces flag.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Deaths

@Chomskywala: Is the 17,000 number of Sikh deaths for all of India or for Delhi alone? I don't have access to the source but the quote seems to imply all of India. Could you check and make a correction if necessary? Thanks. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I'll need a bit of time, but I will do it when I have a chance.

Deaths

@Chomskywala: Is the 17,000 number of Sikh deaths for all of India or for Delhi alone? I don't have access to the source but the quote seems to imply all of India. Could you check and make a correction if necessary? Thanks. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:38, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I'll need a bit of time, but I will do it when I have a chance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chomskywala (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

American support for Bhindranwale?

The infobox simply lists ‘United States of America’ on the Sikh militant side without qualification or source. Even without accounting for the plethora of unsourced claims of American support for all sorts of groups throughout postwar history based on often flimsy evidence, can either of these be provided? It’s not even easy to find claims of this online. Otherwise I propose deleting that part. Harsimaja (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Same goes for the removal of USSR, Israel, and United Kingdom which is based on something beyond "flimsy evidence". USSR provided no support to India that you would mention them in infobox. UK is alleged of providing intelligence by a fringe Sikh group "Sikh Federation".[9] Still it shouldn't be included in infobox even if it was true. Mention of Israel is based on hearsay,[10] and has no evidence. The source say "The Indian commandos underwent special anti-terror training for over three weeks in 1983 in the recreated landscapes having busy streets, maze of buildings and vehicles. This training came useful when the special commandos entered the Golden Temple at 10.30 pm on June 6, 34 years ago."[11] Unless it has been made evident that the training happened because of Operation Blue Star, then only this would need inclusion. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

For the UK it should be kept in the info box with alleged beside it. I see no reason why this would cause any problem. I agree with you on the rest. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 02:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Its an allegation by Sikh Federation, a fringe group. Why it needs to be kept? 103.240.204.243 (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It is still alleged even if it is by a fringe group. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 03:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You also removed the fact that the operation resulted in Indra Gandhi’s assassination. Why did you remove this? You also removed in the article what the independent estimates say. (Not in the infobox) Both of these things should be restored CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

The article itself says, “ The operation also led to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on 31 October 1984 by two of her Sikh bodyguards as an act of vengeance,[107][108] triggering the 1984 anti-Sikh riots.” CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 03:15, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

It took months to assassinate her. It's not really a "result".

We should use only reliable sources for information, not fringe group. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 04:11, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok but the cause of assassination was blue star. Perhaps we can restore everything you removed with the exception of the countries that supported India CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Meaning restore the original with the removal of the USSR, UK and Israel CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Other things I removed include the casualties that happened in June and July, which were months after this conflict. Why they should be added here? 103.240.204.243 (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That as well should be removed. The rest should be restored CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree for everything to restored except for what you have mentioned CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

What else I have missed? Mention it here and I will provide explanation. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

You removed Indra’s assassination which was the result of Blue Star and that the NSG was founded because of Blue Star thus being a result of the operation. You also removed part of this for no reasons, “ The government-issued white paper stated that 1,592 militants were apprehended and there were 554 combined militant and civilian casualties,[15] much lower than independent estimates[24] which ranged from 18,000 to 20,000.[18]: 108 “ CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The above I have mentioned should be restored. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

If there is no response then I will restore what I suggest. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It took months to assassinate her. It's not really a "result".

NSG was also founded much after this incident.

"18,000 to 20,000" were killed in June and July. Nothing to do with this specific incident but the larger Khalistan insurgency. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 04:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

NSG’s page on wikipedia says it was founded after Blue Star to counter terrorism. Even if the result took a few months it was caused by Bluestar. Same with Gandhi’s assassination. Ask anyone and I think they will agree with me.

I say these two be added. After all Bluestar resulted in to these two events. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

But hundreds of units, groups and militants started their foundation after this attack. We shouldn't be mentioning any. 103.240.204.243 (talk) 03:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Not many of them were major. The black cats were major CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

We should restore what I have suggested. It would be a win win compromise. You got some of what you want and I get some of what I want CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, "Formation of NSG" can be added. Anything else? 103.240.204.243 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

And Indra Gandhi’s assassination. That is all that should be added CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

So shall I go for with adding the above CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

If there is no reply I shall go ahead with the above CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

please mention if weapons were found. 2601:641:4000:13CC:144A:F445:F75D:B60C (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

Update the following: "Operation Blue Star was an Indian Armed Forces operation between 1 and 10 June 1984 to remove armed terrorist Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and his followers from the buildings of the Golden Temple, the holiest site of Sikhism, in Amritsar, Punjab, India."

Remove the following with fake reference "In 1981, the Soviets launched Operation Kontakt, which was based on a forged document purporting to contain details of the weapons and money provided by the ISI to Sikh militants who wanted to create an independent country.[27] In November 1982, Yuri Andropov, the General Secretary of the Communist Party and leader of the Soviet Union, approved a proposal to fabricate Pakistani intelligence documents detailing ISI plans to foment religious disturbances in Punjab and promote the creation of Khalistan as an independent Sikh state.[28] Indira Gandhi's decision to move troops into the Punjab was based on her taking seriously the information provided by the Soviets regarding secret CIA support for the Sikhs.[29]"

Remove the statement as it is fake propaganda "and the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)"

remove as this is not true "One of the main aims of the KGB active measures in the early 1980s was to manufacture evidence that the CIA and Pakistani intelligence were behind the growth of Sikh separatism in Punjab.[27] In 1981 the Soviets launched Operation Kontakt that was based on a forged document purporting to contain details of the weapons and money provided by the ISI to Sikh militants who wanted to create an independent country.[27] According to agent reports, the level of anxiety in the Indian embassy regarding Pakistani support for Sikh separatists indicated that KONTAKT was successfully achieving its goals of creating an alarmist effect.[27] The Soviets used a new recruit in the New Delhi residency named “Agent S” who was close to Indira Gandhi as a major channel for providing her information.[27] Agent S provided Indira Gandhi with false documents purporting to show Pakistani involvement in the Khalistan conspiracy.[27] In November 1982 Yuri Andropov, the leader of the Soviet Union, approved a proposal to fabricate Pakistani intelligence documents detailing ISI plans to foment religious disturbances in Punjab and promote the creation of Khalistan as an independent Sikh state.[28] The KGB became confident that it could continue to deceive Indira Gandhi indefinitely with fabricated reports of CIA and Pakistani conspiracies against her.[28] The Soviets persuaded Rajiv Gandhi during a visit to Moscow in 1983 that the CIA was engaged in subversion in the Punjab.[28] When Rajiv Gandhi returned to India, he declared this to be true.[28] Indira Gandhi's decision to move troops into the Punjab was based on her taking seriously the disinformation provided by the Soviets regarding secret CIA support for the Sikhs.[29] The KGB was responsible for Indira Gandhi exaggerating the threats posed by both the CIA and Pakistan.[29] The KGB role in facilitating Operation Bluestar was acknowledged by Subramanian Swamy who stated in 1992 “The 1984 Operation Bluestar became necessary because of the vast disinformation against Sant Bhindranwale by the KGB, and repeated inside Parliament by the Congress Party of India."[51]"

remove the following fake content with fake reference "Chellaney reported that about "eight to ten" men suspected Sikh militants had been shot with their hands tied. In that dispatch, Mr. Chellaney interviewed a doctor who said he had been picked up by the army and forced to conduct postmortems despite the fact he had never done any postmortem examination before.[140] In reaction to the dispatch, the Indian government charged Chellaney with violating Punjab press censorship, two counts of fanning sectarian hatred and trouble, and later with sedition,[141] calling his report baseless and disputing his casualty figures.[142] The Supreme Court of India ordered Chellaney to cooperate with Amritsar police, who interrogated him concerning his report and sources. Chellaney declined to reveal his source, citing journalistic ethics and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press. In September 1985 charges against Chellaney were dropped.[141] The Associated Press stood by the accuracy of the reports and figures, which were "supported by Indian and other press accounts".[143]"

remove the following fake content with fake reference "Post-mortem reports showed that most of the dead bodies had their hands tied behind their backs, implying they had died after the army assault and not during. These bodies were in a putrid state at the time of post-mortem as they had been exposed in the open for 72 hours before being brought in.[44]" Vivekmalhotra9977 (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: You can't just call references that you don't like "fake" or "propaganda". You'll need to provide a much stronger argument as to why these sources are unreliable and yours are better. WP:IDONTLIKEIT does not count. Actualcpscm (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

this is a biases page. this is edited by some Anti Indian elements. i want to report the authenticity of the article. 117.198.70.215 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Ok, noted. Please make specific suggestions for changes if you want them done. --Mvqr (talk) 11:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)