Hi All, The infobox said
And I changed it to
Although there are several reports alleging members of the Congress party as perpetrators, this isn't confirmed. Should the article infobox mention this as alleged or just completely remove the perps parameter, suggestions/opinions invited. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I have removed it. There is nothing for the infobox to summarise until it is sourced. Reliably. Britmax (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Britmax, Thanks a lot for the kind reply and the action. Agree with your opinion. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with this removal. I did find some sources and will re-add the content at a later stage. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are right. Restored content with reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
- Orientls i had to partially revert your edit to remove poor sources, this needs to be discussed first and requires consensus to be added. See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR for relevant policies and then share your opinion. several reports also implicate RSS in these riots but we can't include all that in infobox.(see below sources)
- That was not a "partial revert" but a blanket revert of a long standing content for which I provided quality reliable sources. There was no need of sources in first place per WP:CITELEAD. Your use of conspiracy theory blog links to oppose statements of reliable sources just shows that you don't understand what constitutes a WP:RS or any of the guidelines you are linking. Have a careful reading of each of them and don't revert per WP:BRD. Orientls (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Orientis, I have removed the content as a Blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME, refrain from re-adding this before a consensus on the talk page. consider this a final warning for that as BLP violations are enforced rather strictly--DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DBigXray: It is clear that first you are attempting to remove mention of congress. First you asked for reliable sources and once they were provided you begin to grossly misrepresent WP:BLPCRIME when we are not even alleging a specific individual of a crime. Now self-revert yourself before any other edit you make here or I will have to take you to WP:ANI for this disruption. Don't forget you recently came off from one. Orientls (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it is clear And I have given my reasons for that. Your edits are against consensus, use poor sources and are BLP violations. You are welcome to participate and share your opinion to generate consensus and you are also welcome to approach any dramaboards to report me and face WP:BOOMERANG. I am above these intimidation tactics and I am not going to self-revert to restore BLP violations. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- @DBigXray and Orientls: Please, can both of you calm down and not edit war or run to WP:ANI (in case of Orientls) for something which can be calmly discussed here. @DBigXray: you requested a WP:RS when the mention of Congress was removed and Orientls seems to have provided two which seem WP:RS to me. If you disagree or believe that there is more to it than that can be discussed here. Now, you have provided some sources which seem to be interviews of individuals from sources which are known to have a political bias (and we did have a discussion on this sometime back). Still, I am happy to discuss more on this here. I also fail to see how this falls under WP:BLPCRIME but maybe I am not seeing this clearly and you can illustrate your point better. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
- Although the source says the the perpetrators were organised by Congress (I), it cannot be assumed that all the atrocities were committed by them as opposed to people with other reasons for hating Sikhs. Therefore this is too wide a matter to be dealt with in a box soundbite and should be handled in the text. Britmax (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Adamgerber80, I am calm, it seems you have not read the comments above properly, please read the comments above and find out who tried intimidation tactics to bully and threaten to make his way out of content dispute ? Then find out who ran and opened a frivolous ANI thread (that is still open) in an attempt to weaponize ANI? after knowing who did this, kindly give credits to whom it is due, instead of using False equivalence and showering your praises on "both".
Now talking about the content, WP:BLPCRIME states that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The same can be extended to organization, Congress in this case. Both sources only accuses Congress. None of the sources so far claim Congress as an organisation was convicted into organising this riot. Hence this is clearly against the policies to introduce this accusations into infobox trying to put defamatory sentences so as to infer that conviction on Congress was handed in a court of law while all that exists is accusations. Infobox is not the place for this.
I have given the links that support these points that even RSS-BJP were accused and cases filed against them in a court of law, should we then also add BJP in infobox ? In my opinion, I support the action taken by Britmax to entirely remove the accusation from the infobox.
14 FIRs were registered “against 49 BJP-RSS leaders for their role in anti-Sikh riots of 1984”.
--DBigXrayᗙ 07:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Infobox edits are fine where they are since they are backed with solid reliable sources. Others are correct that your rebuttal is not supported by solid sources and that nothing in infobox concerns BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- This source that Orientis added. A quote from it notes that
few arrested were quickly released on the behest of Congress leaders...Official inquiry known as the Mishra Commission gave a blanket exoneration to Congress (I) leaders... Congress Party leaders have repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the rioting.
So if anything this source only confirms my point that The infobox should not mention Congress as the perpetrators. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Read the whole chapter. It says "the blatantly planned and well directed nature of the violence was impossible to conceal". D4iNa4 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- That parameter is inappropriate here, as is the "motive" parameter. Both those things are too complex for an infobox. That Congress members played a role is not really in dispute, but adding "Congress members" as perpetrators in the infobox (without any others) is an implication that no one else was involved, which is nonsensical (and is certainly not supported by the sources in question). The "Infobox civilian attack" is a fairly general infobox, covering a number of types of attacks. Not all parameters are applicable everywhere: riots are, almost by definition, incidents without a clearly defined body of perpetrators. Both motive and the identity of the perpetrators should be discussed in the text, where it can be presented in a nuanced manner. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Source describes in the chapter that how Congress played the major role. Treatment of congress as prepetrators is also described by other reliable sources and they don't dispute congress involvement. So far the motive is confirmed, and reliable sources state Congress were perpetrator. If you have any other reliable sources for confirming any other perpetrator of these riots then we can add them as well, but there is no reason to remove "Congress members", though it can be re-worded. Otherwise RfC would be the only option if it needs to be removed since it is standing for long and sources confirm the information. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Those sources confirm involvement by members of the Congress, which is not under dispute. Adding "Congress members" as the only perpetrators is explicitly saying that every single person who committed an act of violence in these riots was a member of the Congress. That is nonsense, and none of the sources you have provided say that. I don't have to provide sources for anything. You wish to claim that all perpetrators were Congress members; you need to provide sources supporting that, per WP:BURDEN. The role of the Congress should be discussed in the body, where this nuance may be examined. Vanamonde (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It meets the definition provided at Template:Infobox civilian attack: "perpetrators – The group that brings about or carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act (use perpetrator in case of a single group)." If you have issues with "prepetrators" then we can just use "prepetrator". I wonder if any source will say that "that all perpetrators were Congress members". If there are any other prepetrators mentioned in reliable sources then you are free to add them. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's a misreading of the documentation. That makes sense for a well-defined group (or groups). It does not apply here, where the conflict was diffuse both in time and space, including hundreds (probably thousands) of individuals incidents. Also, the very fact that you are interested in adding the INC as a perpetrator but expect others to do the digging suggests that you are basing your edits on the notion that the INC was the only perpetrator; again, not something based on the sources. Vanamonde (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is still sensible and the fact remains that it is not treating Congress as less or more, according to the sources. You can mention multiple reliable sources citing anyone other than Congress. If these sources had named any other prepetrator then we would be already aware of them. So far they have named nobody except Congress. We are doing same for years. If reliable sources make no mention of any other perpetrator then we should avoid it as well. It would make no sense to remove the parameter only because you assume that conflict included more groups. Even that would need to be supported by source otherwise that is just WP:OR. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's not how that works. If you want to add an exceptional claim to the article, you need to demonstrate that it is supported by reliable sources. You haven't done so. INC involvement in the pogrom is discussed at length in the body, as it should be; don't try to shoehorn it into a place where it doesn't belong. Vanamonde (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- D4iNa4 it seems that you are either unable to understand Vanamonde's central point or you are showing deliberate WP:IDHT. There are multiple issues about adding Congress Party as a perpetrator in the infobox.
- perpetrators field is for the "The group" which has to be undisputed and well defined. Which is not the case here. Facts of the matter are some of the congress members stand accused for their involvement. But no source says that they are the only perpetrators here. The incident was spread over number of days and multiple locations, violent mobs including the members of the general public, Congress, BJP-RSS members, smaller fringe group members etc were reported by media as involved. By mentioning "Congress party members" you are claiming a conviction and squarely fixing the entire responsibility. This is not the job of Wikipedia editors to fix the blame on a person or a group. If there are indeed conviction that fixes the blame squarely on Congress Party as perpetrator and reliable sources report that only then can we use mention this in the infobox. As of now the reliable sources only claim involvement which needs to be discussed in the article body. So far no individual congress leader has been convicted and here you are trying to add "Congress Party" in the infobox. Only the involvement has been reported and that should be discussed in the article body and not the infobox.
- The Infobox's purpose is to summarise the article content and report the undisputed facts and not mislead the reader into thinking something that is not even supported by facts. Hence these controversial content must be removed from the article infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- Don't comment on editors. You are still not giving up your false notion that the parameter concerns BLP. To answer, "But no source says that they are the only perpetrators here", this can be better answered if you have found any other perpetrators being supported by WP:RS (not interviews or unreliable blogs). Above sources including HRW source says "1984 anti-Sikh violence was led and often perpetrated by activists and sympathizers of the then-ruling party, the Indian National Congress, some of whom later became members of parliament or occupied posts in government. The police simply stood by, and were often complicit in the attacks. Instead of holding those responsible for the violence to account, many police officials and Congress party leaders involved have been promoted over the last 30 years." We can stick to this since this has left no doubt regarding how many perpetrators there were.
- As a side note, I have reverted an overlooked edit made by an IP from October, that concerned removal of a long standing content. Orientls (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- A lot many Human rights organisation have implicated BJP members, some of them e.g. Kodnani are even convicted in 2002 Gujarat riots by courts of law. Going by your logic we should also add a Perpetrator parameter as "BJP party members" over there. shouldn't we ? --DBigXrayᗙ 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- If you cannot find a source that says that they are the only perpetrators, then the issue is too nuanced for the infobox, and should be laid out in such detail as is reliably sourced in the text. The simplicity of infoboxes means that they have their limits. Britmax (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2) I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but the perpetrators field is inappropriate here and in similar cases. Even the source you just cited, Orientls, says often perpetrated. As in, its explicitly saying there were others. Vanamonde (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- So you are not disputing the attribution to "perpetrator" on factual basis? 2002 riots has a different infobox than this one. But I got your point. Since police investigations and corruption occur in every riot, I guess this will only lead to addition of governments as perpetrators everywhere else. How about we add '"pogroms" to "attack type" parameter, and remove Congress from parameter? Orientls (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Pogrom" is more specific here than either "massacre" or "mass murder", so if we're talking about replacing the latter two, I'm fine with that. If you're just trying to load that parameter with as many terms as you can find, no, I wouldn't support that. Vanamonde (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Orientis, I am disputing that, as I noted in my comment above. 2002 riot was an example in response to your comment. Sometimes examples do work. Anyway glad to see we are making progress. yes as folks have suggested, the perpetrator parameter should be completely removed. Regarding the "Type" again no clear word can be used, we have several options, "Pogrom", "mass murder", "massacre" "riots", Sikh political parties like to call it "Genocide", The incident is widely reported as "riot". None of these words are the best representative of the events and not all of them can be added. Besides, all these words are controversial, and riot is already mentioned in the infobox title. IMHO we should simply remove the "Type" parameter as well, cause keeping it there will only encourage IP and new user disruption who will keep adding words based on their POV. hence we should let the article body discuss the "type". The infobox already mentions in the title as riot, so we are covered there.--DBigXrayᗙ 16:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- I am fine with the suggestion that "pogrom" should be added and should replace "massacre". While reading infobox I was thinking I was missing something and this was it. Type parameter is justified here. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
As I said above, none of these words are suitable here. The only non controversial word for which most of the sources agree "riot" which covers everything, the article title is also riot for the same reasons. Pogrom, genocide etc are particularly controversial words. Pogrom implies the involvement of state authorities (police, government etc) which is again is disputed and controversial. we should remove this "type" parameter and let the Article body explain the incident. Again regarding the motive, All the sources mention Gandhi's assassination as the trigger. Motive= "avenging the death" is also controversial, People were outraged and the violence ensued, the motive isn't established by any court and as Vanamonde suggested, we should get rid of Motive parameter. There is no requirement to use every parameter of the infobox, and they should be skipped especially if the values are not established without doubt. Infact due to such problems some of the articles remove the Infobox Entirely, due to the problem with the parameters. While I believe we can keep the infobox after removing the controversial and contested parameters. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Further it is even strange that the article title and the infobox title calls it as "Riot" and the infobox parameter calls it as type= "Pogrom". Type and motive should also be removed--DBigXrayᗙ 19:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- DBigXray People have reached a consensus here. Show us where was consensus for this and this edit because it existed here for many years. Don't remove content only because you are "removing as explained in talk page thread" , you have to get consensus and if you are seeing that people have stopped replying that means that they are no longer interested in arguing the already answered concern. If you still want to be a lone opposer to long standing content then try other methods of WP:DR (DRN, RfC) instead of edit warring. Orientls (talk) 08:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- "Lot of crap has existed for many years on an article" is not a justification to restore crap back to the article. You need a stronger justification than that. After a consensus was reached to remove the perpetrator field from Infobox you added the same line on 3 Dec to the first line of the lead. regarding the Motive parameter Vanamonde has already made strong arguements in removing it to which I have agreed and no one else made any objections. Regarding the Type parameter, again you are trying to hammer back your own preferred version into the article. The discussion was left ignored for 2 days so the next step in BRD is followed to bring you back to join the discussion. So I expect a valid policy based and justifiable reason from you to restore all the three edits that you just reverted. Remember your preferred version isn't the consensus version and it is malicious to state that. No one here is a fool to be misled with such puerile tactics. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Content reliably sourced and should not be removed only because you are objecting. You don't get automatic approval to remove content only because people are no longer interested in replying something which they have already answered. If you believe your arguments are strong but people are ignoring then try any other resolutions described at WP:DR. Orientls (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Consensus isn't the counting of noses but the substance of their arguments. The same restrictions you are claiming on me, applies to you as well, you do not have any special authority to repeatedly edit war to restore your preferred content into the article, while others are can't. You should be aware that if you don't respond to the discussion for 2 days then making the bold edit is allowed to bring the participant back to the discussion thread, As I see it you are yet to address the concerns being raised. For clarity of the topics, and to avoid mixing of 3 topics, we should use this thread for the discussion on the line about "congress party", I am starting new threads below for Motive and Type field, so I expect a reasonable response explaining your reverts on all the three points. A talk page discussion is the first step of DR, you are yet to make a reasonable case for the content in question, simply saying reliable source is not enough. The congress party in the first sentence of the lead that you added. I don't care if it was existing before, since you added it you take full responsibility for that content and are expected to explain your edit why you feel it should be added. I had removed Since you have restored this again kindly explain your reverts. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:26, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not going to read all of this back-and-forth, but let me make two basic points; the existence of dodgy content in the article does not imply consensus for it. How well is it sourced? Was the content discussed, reviewed, or commented upon in any way? Second; the more I look at it, the more I think the "type" parameter is entirely inappropriate, because again it seems to be created for categorizing single incidents; "arson", "murder", etc. It doesn't apply here. Really what we need to do is replace "Infobox civilian attack" by "Infobox civil conflict", because this wasn't a single attack, it was a number of them. The analogy to the 2002 Gujarat riots is apt, because a number of scholars discuss them in the same way; they both had extensive state support, and included carefully targeted violence, but also harnessed majoritarian anger (justified or otherwise) and included elements of spontaneity (most sources agree on these points, btw, which is why I'm not bothering to cite them). These are not details that can be conveyed in an infobox; they are better suited to the prose. Vanamonde (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Vanamonde to summarize, Orientis has agreed to remove the mention of Perpetrators from the infobox but then he has added the line "by anti-Sikh mobs (notably Congress Party members)" into the first sentence of the article, to continue to push his POV, so he took one step forward and then another back. And this thread is to discuss this addition. The other issue about the "motive in infobox" has been resolved with your suggestion of infobox conflict. But then the problem about the "TYPE of conflict" still remain and he is not removing the contentions words neither giving justifications as you can see in the threads below. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC
- This edit by Orientls was revert of this recent IP edit which he already described above before he agreed to remove the mention of perpetrators. You need to stop misrepresenting others. D4iNa4 (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- By re-instating someone's edit the WP:BURDEN of the content is passed to one who re-instates. Instead of passing the blame to the IP you and your mate should make arguments to defend the said content. I find this extremely amusing that after agreeing to remove this from the infobox Orientis added it to the first line of the lead and instead of defending you are now trying to pass the blame of the content that he restored. :-) --DBigXrayᗙ 09:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- D4iNa4, I have waited for more than 19 days for your response here, if you have nothing to defend this controversial line, I will be removing it soon from the lead. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)