Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Page move

It seems that a majority of the previous discussion favoured moving...the common name for this event in English is the Amritsar Massacre.....so why is this article still located at its current location? Narson 08:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a major undocumented deletion back in February, I will add the deleted material back. Dabbler 16:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move. Even allowing that the article ended up here by a rather bizarre means, I can't really accept the "needs a consensus to stay here argument" after all this time has elapsed. I note also that ambiguity is to be avoided: there may be several things that might be called a massacre in Amritsar, but just one happened in the Chillianwallah Bagh. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a move of this page to the common name for it in English, Amritsar Massacre. The last poll was a dead heat by my reading, at 6 support 6 oppose, and considering the page had been moved against policy to its current location, I believe that should have caused it to be sent back to Amritsar Massacre rather than continuing to remain in an odd location. The idea that Wikipedia has some hidden and unwritten rule for preference to local names over common English is bizzare and just doesn't bear up to scrutiny when other articles are looked at, with the vast majority using English names as opposed to the name used by the locals where the event took place. -- Narson (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support as common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Does it matter? - Redirects are easy and it doesn't really matter where a page is located if the alternatives are there so people can find it. As was made clear above, most Indian English speakers know it as the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and there have also been other massacres in Amritsar so we may need disambiguation. Dabbler (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. If it didn't matter, why was it moved in the first place? Why would be have systems set up to move pages, why would we have procedures and templates? It obviously does matter to some. It is incorrect where it is and should be corrected, that is as simple as it is to me, in the same way I correct any incorrect edit. Using the common name keeps users from being needlessly confused or in other ways 'put out'. Narson (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think you are making a POV statement when you say that Amritsar massacre is the "correct" name. It is the name you prefer but not everyone shares your opinion. I used to think so but then I learned from others that my assumptions were not necessarily shared by all. Why is it the "correct" name and why is Jallianwala Bagh massacre not correct?

To solve the conundrum, perhaps you can give me references which state unequivocally that one is more correct than the other. One is a general name used widely, one is more specific and used locally. There have been other massacres associated with Amritsar, for example Operation Blue Star, but no other called the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Dabbler (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sure we can all agree Britannica are rather authoritative?[1]. A local use of it (On an Amritsar travel group: [2]. Encarta: [3] which clearly prefers Amristar, though recognises the alternative. A weaker reference in a news report about its teaching in British schools: [4]. A uk school's history site: [5]. Annother encyclopedia: [6]. New York Times: [7]. Use of 'massacre at Amristar' by an Indian paper: [8]. BBC use: [9]. Dyer's biography: [10], rather typical for books about the subject or about Dyre from what I've seen. More encyclopedia useage: [11]. I can keep on going but I think I've shown a wide useage among reliable sources and others. Many make no reference at all to Jalianwala Bagh Massacre, some don't even mention it took place at the Jalianwala Bagh. Narson (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support the move on its merits due to the citations given above. "Jallianwala Bagh massacre" is not given equal note in many of the examples of prominent English-language sources and is not mentioned at all in some. — AjaxSmack 07:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UCN. We should use the name that most people will recognize. Dekimasuよ! 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support per the reasons given above and in the requested move blurb. This page was incorrectly moved before and while I think a good case has been made for Amristar Massacre being the standard, at least in western English (Which is, possibly regretably, where most good sources come from in English, though that is likely more of a systematic bias of the whole wikiproject and well outside the scope of this move request, IMO). I have yet to see anything indicating authoritative sources prefer Jalianwala Bagh Massacre or that it is a preferred name. There has never been a good case given for this pages controversial and undiscussed move previously and I do not believe there is a strong case for it to be kept at what is, IMO, the less common name. Narson (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: In my experience it is always called the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

"...Considering the page had been moved against policy to its current location, I believe that should have caused it to be sent back to Amritsar Massacre rather than continuing to remain in an odd location."

I agree. Why should "consensus," vaguely defined as somewhere between 60% and 100% of opinion (and is in reality solely an admin's decision), be required to undo a previously undiscussed move. I think a lower threshold for reversion of contested undiscussed moves should be policy but it's not. (Ideally, an undiscussed move that is challenged should require a "consensus" to be upheld.) I support your move request on these grounds only. If my support is invalidated because of this, post it to my talk page and I will lie and declare "Jallianwala Bagh massacre" to be heinously offensive or something. — AjaxSmack 01:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

If the move in question is recent and/or caused the opening of the RM, I close it from the perspective that the discussion must show support for the new title, or I will put it back at the old title (if the new title lacks consensus, I close it as "The result of the move was restore..."). It's the easiest way to prevent gaming of the system, although my definition of what is "recent" is sometimes disputed. In other words, a substantial percentage (a quarter? a third? I don't know what percentage I close) of closes are done the way you think they should be. Dekimasuよ! 03:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Response posted here. — AjaxSmack 07:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

All right, but most of the people who supported the move proposal (perhaps even a rough consensus of the commenters) did so explicitly based on its merits, not based on a perceived policy violation. Dekimasuよ! 04:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm also not entirely sure how 4 supports, 1 'Who cares' and a 'No' doesn't constitute a concensus of the vote. Thats 67% of all cast votes for support, 80% of all votes that showed a preference either way. If he wanted more votes, then he could have left the poll open longer or such, but saying that this wasn't a concensus of votes cast is a little bizzare.

In addition yes, the irregular method of the previous move was one reason given, it was not however the underlying reason, it was merely the method that the page came to be against common usage and that we should move it back to the common name (as per wikipedia guidelines). The only time that the previous move was brought up by commentators was to say that concensus may not even be needed to move the page. Narson (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet another example of how "consensus" really is WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE. The nominator (although belatedly) presented copious evidence for a return to the article's previous title. Three other discussants, all long-time users, agreed with the premise of the nomination (notwithstanding other reasons given by myself here). The only opposition to the move consisted solely of "In my experience it is always called..." by an esteemed long-time user but an extremely weak argument nonetheless. (Isn't that WP:OR?) Despite this, "consensus" was not achieved and the closer provided no additional rational for his/her decision (and spelled the title "Chillianwallah Bagh," further weakening the case for indispensability of the the current title). I ask in this case as I have asked before at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, what is "consensus" other than fiat of the closing admin? (Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves). — AjaxSmack 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd call it "determining consensus is not to be confused with counting votes", I'm sure we have a page that says something like that, and I suspect that it's not merely a guideline. It's wonderful to tell me that "Amritsar Massacre" is the common name (I knew it had two names before I ever saw the page, although I'd have guessed it was written "Chillianwallah Bagh", and if I'd had to guess, I'd have said that Amritsar Massacre was probably the common name). I had no clear idea of how many people said move or not move when I closed the requested move because I make a point of not knowing, just like at XfD. I read the arguments is all. Me, if I'd been interested in having the article moved, my first point of call would have been google books to see what it's called in print. I checked that when I closed the debate because I very rarely take claims of "most common" or whatever on faith. Try it - Jallianwala-Bagh-massacre and Amritsar-massacre (slightly overstated due to the occasional use of the phrase for the 1984 events) - and tell me that one or the other is much more common. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as the Google search goes, most of the sources for "Jallianwala Bagh massacre" seem to be by Indian authors, whereas the others seem to be more international in nature. That fact can be used to bolster various theories of article naming, but I'd maintain that it shows one name to be more in line with the principle of least surprise. I am sure the close was made in good faith and I will, of course, abide by whatever decision you feel is best. Dekimasuよ! 05:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think I had provided sufficient evidence of Amritsar's widespread use above when asked to do so, I note that the one oppose vote provided no information to back up his assertion that Jallianwala Bagh was the correct name nor did the 'I don't care'. I still believe this is the wrong decision but you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine, and you have the tools, so be it. Narson (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dyre.jpg

Image:Dyre.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed use of image is not fair use here, I have removed it from this page and added a justification for its use on Reginald Dyer. Dabbler (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A Simple Edit and The Massacre of British Pride?

This British reaction to my simple edit to the analogy to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre has been surprisng. I never expected any objections, since I just added it as a matter of interest. I am not Indian and I hardly knew anything about it until recently. Two Brit-related types have suddenly become so good at enforcing rules to the max and calling my reference "not reiable" - give me a break. I guess this massacre thing is really touching a nerve among you Brits and Brit lovers. Suddenly all you guys are so into detail. Deep down in your hearts you must feel guilt. Not one Indian is objecting. No worries. I will reword it so it will be still there. I am clever enough to find a way through all the rules and get it in there somehow, now that you have challenged me. Just give me time. In the meantime, if you feel that guilty deep down, buy lunch for an Indian as an act of kindness. Remember: all lives are priceless, and all lifetaking is subhuman, so put aside pride and love all people of all color. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Borderline personal attacks and a total failure to AGF. Way to try and win people over to your point of view. Narson (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More than a borderline personal attack, a direct personal attack, an assumption of incipient racism and worse itself an inverse racism by assuming the person making the change was white. Britain is now a multicultural society, so the edit could easily have been made by someone from an ethnic background. A complete lack of good faith because of a failing to get to the end of the article for a modern British view of the event "As an Englishman, I cannot help but feel sorrow and shame at what he did...The massacre was the worst atrocity by a British officer ever recorded". Justin talk 10:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I take that back, you'd read it and still tried to push a POV, thats very pointyJustin talk 10:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Pushing the same POV on Bava-Beccaris massacre, both added to my watch list. Justin talk 10:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be impressed if any qualified person acctually declared that these were war crimes, as opposed to 'would be considered war crimes if they happened today'. AFAIK the Hague Conventions did not cover these actions. Narson (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I see on his personal User page that he/she is interested in creating links between pages which are "related" in some way. It sounds that he/she would like to create a bot to do this, but presumably in the meantime History2007has started manually. By the way I have already bought a lunch for an Indian, so it can't be me he objects to ;-) Dabbler (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A minor point justin, he put in that quote, I simply refactored it and removed the blatant POV and crappy citations. Just to be fair. And well, I never buy anyone lunch Dabbler and rarely eat it myself so...it could be me. I will just add it to my lexicon of Wikipedia descriptors of me. Jew-loving anti-semite pro-British anti-British pro-American anti-Canadian anti-American traitor patriot racist. Thats me! Narson (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

@Narson, you forget your "streak of completely or partially unsupported Anti-Argentina bias" and the "anti-British propagandist". I've no objection to the quote, I would imagine its how most people in the UK view that event. Pity that most people won't find it as they'll be looking for Amritsar massacre. I can be accused of buying an "Indian" lunch, as I took my daughter and her mother (ex-partner) to MacDonalds on Saturday. But as her mother is a Sikh and originally from the Punjab, she'd probably take exception at the patronising advice from our contributor above. Justin talk 13:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is so very interesting. I just love it. There is another way to find links between pages that I had not thought about before: via user edits. It appears that there are natural clusters of users that get formed via edit histories and talk pages. For instance it appears that that there is a group of users (including you guys above) who are interested in both the Falkland War (I had forgotten all about that) and this massacre. This phenomena is so similar to the six degrees of separation princiiple applied to the internet itself that the idea is worth investigating. And there seems to be a natural map of the edit clusters to some type of "social belief system". From a psychological point of view, there also seems to be some type of "support group" whereby users support each other. These are people who have never met in person, but yet feel a bond based on a set of beliefs as clearly demonstrated here. It would be so interesting to get a few users to fill out some type of psychlogical profile form and then see what drives this clustering. Would youu guys be interested in being subjects in this experiment? For instance, why are you interested in the Falklands thing? Do you feel a bond over that issue as well? However, neither of you 3 has shown any interest in taking sides on Operation Keelhaul or Bleiburg massacre? Do you feel that to be "outside your world view" and does not need attention from you? I would have thought you would get worked up on that too, for it is Brit military history. Or is it because the Brits did not physically do the killing there? I have to analyze the histories further to make a guess. But this has suddenly turned into an interesting research project. Any other ideas? Thanks History2007 (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS: I have observed a group of users on the talk page on prayer who also cluster together. But they seem to have two polar group of athists vs believers. They have huge fights on the tak pages over the most minor changes and seem to live in a "micro world" all by themselves. There is no user overlap between that and this group. But who is the opposition here? Do you guys feel there is a competing group you have to defend against? History2007 (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS2: I have observed no major emotional conflicts on pages that relate to things like fashion. I conjecture that users who usually edit military history pages and those who edit the prayer hardly overlap with the fashionistas. I bet the cluster here and that on teh page for prayer both view the fashion pages as outside their "world view".... I wonder.... History2007 (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry guys but I am not part of your bonding group after all, but History2007 has made a number of false assumptions here. First I have never edited anything on the Falklands War, secondly my interest in this article comes from my interest and knowledge of India not military history as such so its not too surprising that I haven't really been involved in the other massacre articles. Lets all just assume good faith, please. Dabbler (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, membeship in such groups is often not based on traditional set theory but on fuzzy sets where the degree of membership is a number between 1 and 100. The other two fellows had both edited Falklands and can be considered as having higher degrees of memberhsip. Yet it was interesting how your reaction was so different as teh scope of massacres widened. However, I have been looking at other pages now and there are clear clusters. I am now pretty sure Wikipedia can be improved by computing these clusters. As for assuming things, I am a scientist, so I form hypotheses and test them, rather than just assume. Anyay, my whole intellectual invasion into this Indo-British territory has been very educational, and given rise a whole new set of ideas for me. Now it is time for me to say "tata for now" and go follow other interesting topics. Thank you for being the subjects in this experiment History2007 (talk) 03:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC).

Casualties

There seems to have been an assumption that casualties=fatalities, which is incorrect. From another contributor to this discussion, it appears that Smith's figure is casualties. I have changed the text to reflect this. Pol098 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the opening paragraph because the way it was phrased suggested that the soldiers were taking part in a peaceful demonstation. It was poor grammar. Also my edit removes the word 'demonstration' which is a problematic word. There is no evidence that the gathering was a 'demonstration', rather it was a religious/cultural holiday/festival. I realise that my edit also removes the word 'peaceful', which the gathering certainly was (until the troops turned up) I can see no way around this edit, but hopefully the word 'unarmed' later in the paragraph covers this. Monk Bretton (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracy in the "Prelude to the Massacre" Section

"There was no effort however to bring the ban on assembly to the knowledge of the public, proving that the impending massacre at Jallianwala Bagh was planned in cold blood." The above statement is inaccurate. As a matter of fact, Dyer had spent the morning on the day of the massacre reading out the ban in vaious locations in Amritsar -- nineteen in all -- which partly explains why he didn't initially give reports of the gathering much credence. Also, does it really "prove" that the massacre was planned? "Prove" is a very strong word, and should not be used lightly. Hence, I've deleted the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.73.170 (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alternate Interpretation of the Massacre

I've just finished reading an article entitled "The Errors of Amritsar" in the BBC History Magazine, volume 10, issue number 4. The article claims that, far from being a premeditated and cold-blooded murder, the Amritsar Massacre was just a series of blunders. Basically, the riots three days before the massacre had started out as peaceful demonstrations, but escalated following clashes between demonstrators and police. This was the reason for Dyer's proclamation that "no procession of any kind is permitted... Any such processions or any gathering of more than four men would be looked upon and treated as an unlawful assembly and dispersed by force of arms if necessary." When Dyer heard that a meeting was planned at the Jallianwala Bagh, he initially dismissed it as a mere rumour: "I thought I had done enough to make the crowd not meet" was what he said the the Hunter Enquiry. At 4 o'clock in the afternoon, however, the deputy police superintendent, a Mr. John Rehill, told him that spies had confirmed that a meeting was taking place anyway. Seeing this as a deliberate defiance of his authority, Brigadier-General Dyer took some 90 men and a few armoured cars to the location of the meeting. He had been expecting that some 1,000 people would be taking part; when he realised that he had badly underestimated the size of the crowd, he panicked, ordering his men to fire into the crowd. (Two factors which increased the scale of the devastation were Dyer's unfamiliarity of the Jallianwala Bagh, which meant that he didn't realise he was blocking the only exit; and the fact that when people tried to escape over the walls, he thought they were trying to ruch him, and directed his troops to open fire on them.) According to this article, his behaviour in the days following the massacre suggest that it was indeed a tragic mistake, rather than a premeditated act of repression:

"

When Dyer met the governor of the Punjab, Sir Michael O'Dwyer, several days later, he was noticeably subdued. He told him that once they had engaged the crowd, many people moved to the sides to escape. He thought they were going to rush him. Dyer now admitted this was a mistake on his part.

Similarly, Edward Thompon, a writer and former member of the Indian civil service, revealed that during a dinner party with Miles Irving, the deputy commissioner had claimed that upon returning from the Jallianwala Bagh, Dyer came to see him. The brigadier-general was, in Irving's words, 'all dazed and shaken up'. 'I never knew that there was no way out,' he said.

The reason for the myth of Dyer the cold-blooded butcher was, according to this article, due to two reasons. Firstly, Dyer wasn't the sort of person who would admit to making mistakes, even if doing so would appear to reflect better than claiming he knew what he was doing; secondly, some Anglo-Indians and British conservatives did approve of the massacre. These two factors were what led to Dyer's later claims that he had planned the massacre beforehand.

I think that this interpretation should probably be incorporated into the article, but I'm not sure how yet; maybe an "ALternative interpretation" section at the end? Any ideas would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.73.170 (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To explain away orders to carry out continuous shooting into an unarmed peaceful crowd of 10,000 without warning as "just a series of blunders", to me, is the equivalent of committing the blood-thirsty murderous act all over again.

All the facts show that his was a premeditated act of revenge to teach a lesson for the attack by a mob on Marcella Sherwood on April 9th (again triggered by firing on peaceful gatherings). There's no need for an "alternative interpretation" when there are facts.

At the end of the day, Dyers never accepted responsibility nor was he tried/convicted - justice was never delivered to the 1800 murdered souls or the injured.

Accepting the reality of what happened, instead of attempting to paint this act as less shameful, is the only way to bring bring closure (to those who still feel guilty).Sachingm (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of the article is that "all the facts" don't show that this was a premeditated act. And if you disagree with the perspective of the article, the best way to argue against it is to show that the facts fit your interpretation better than they fit the article's; simply saying that the author is committing "the equivalent of... the blood-thirsty murderous act all over again" doesn't really prove anything, except perhaps that you don't have much of a sense of proportion.90.240.171.45 (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many different interpretations of the massacre, and there is a wealth of literature on the subject in English, written by people of various nationalities. I would caution Sachingm against use of purple prose in his arguments as it means he comes across as somewhat partisan. The contemporary British position is summarised in the report of the Hunter Committee into the Punjab Disturbances [Cmd.681], although more modern revisions to that view have been more along the lines of the speech given by Edwin Montagu to the House of Commons on 8th July 1920 (available via historic Hansard), viz. that Dyer's actions were representative of a kind of colonial terrorism, holding India by the application of force.

As to the unsigned comment which began this discussion, I will say that it is well known that Dyer changed his story several times. The story he stuck to was that he had made up his mind on the way to the Bagh to open fire without warning as he was angry that people were assembling there in defiance of his proclamation, in order not only to disperse the crowd, but to produce a 'moral effect' in the rest of the Punjab. As for what this 'moral effect' was intended to be, or achieve, is debatable. I would ask both the British and Indian contributors to this article to consider the unique biases which pervade their respective historiographies regarding the Amritsar Massacre (and yes, I am aware that my use of the term is revealing of my own 'bias'). The British should consider the apologist nature of some of their literature, while the Indians should be very cautious of anything written under the nationalist governments (I note that some on here have mentioned reading school textbooks covering the subject). WR.Culley (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If WR.Culley was expecting a high-handed "caution" to have an impact, he ought to remember the British aren't in charge of India anymore. And I can assure you, if you were in this room, it wouldn't be just be my speech that would be colorful if anyone suggested it was an accident! It's a massacre everyone accepts, but then it's an accident? Sure, Hiroshima was an accident too.

Of course, my response would be biased - but not as much as this alternate interpretation sourced from British media wanting to play down the seriousness of the unpunished murder of a 1000 people. Sachingm (talk) 05:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Major copyright violation?!

Look at this book, pages 118 to 123. Almost every paragraph there seems to correspond verbatim to something in this article. (In particular, all sections of this article from "The massacre" and later are the same as what is in the book: most of the sentences (some of them rather awkward) are identical in both.) Either this article is a copyvio from the book, or the book is a copyvio of Wikipedia. Which is it? Someone ought to investigate. (I'm inclined to suspect it's the latter.) Shreevatsa (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone find a publishing date for the book? --Narson ~ Talk • 08:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The book was published in 2008 (so noted on page iv). --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, on the same page of the book is the email of the publishers if anyone wants to follow up on this: Ishabooks@hotmail.com . Apparently the set of four books sells at Rs 2,700 (also printed on the same page!) --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 10:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

There was some major rewriting in 08 as I recall. Might be worth checking if the suspect terms were added then. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) - I am replying to the Shreevatsa's inquiry at WP:CV. It appears that the book, which shows a publication date of November 17 2008, is a copy-paste of dozens of Wikipedia articles. For example, I examined the history of the article Home Rule Movement which is also duplicated in the book. The opening sentence was started in the WP article All India Home Rule League on November 9 2005 by an IP and, through several edits by User:Rama's Arrow on November 24 2005 was developed into the entire article now appearing in the book. The book's text was copied sometime before this edit in September 2007. Editing in the Wikipedia article such as Jallianwala Bagh massacre shows that it was developed over time through various edits by a variety editors and was not a wholesale copy-paste. It is possible that the book's publisher, ISHA, is similar to Icon Group International which publishes books compiled from free internet sources. It should be mentioned at WP:RS that this book should not be used as a reference. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Note on innacuracies in the text

Having read through sections of this article I have come across a number of inaccuracies regarding the facts of the massacre. A list follows for your convenience:

- Dyer's soldiers carried machine guns. This is incorrect - the two armoured cars had machine guns but they were not able to get into the Bagh.

- Dyer only ceased fire once he had run out of ammunition. Again, incorrect - when Dyer returned to his camp it was found that approximately 1,650 rounds had been fired, but there was ammunition remaining in the pouches.

- A protest was held at the residence of the Deputy Commissioner of Amritsar. This is inaccurate - this residence was located in the Civil Lines (the European area of the city), which was separated from the rest of the city by several railway bridges. The clash between protesters and army pickets happened at these bridges after the crowd found their way barred. Some protesters began to stone the soldiers and hit their horses with sticks. The picket began to retreat but was ordered to open fire. Two soldiers fired several rounds each and this halted the crowd. Local lawyers were then able to persuade the protesters to turn back. A crowd at another bridge was also fired upon after a warning, and this caused 20-30 casualties.

My information here comes from the Hunter Report. I would correct the inaccuracies in the article, but I'm none too good with the technical aspect of editing Wiki pages. WR.Culley (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

No copyright issue

The copyright on all of Tagore's published work expired in 2002 (60 years after his death in 1941) and his words are in the public domain with no copyright restrictions. see Copyright law of India and links there to official Indian copyright rules. Rjensen (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Edwin Samuel Montagu - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg etext 16592.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Edwin Samuel Montagu - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg etext 16592.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Edwin Samuel Montagu - Punch cartoon - Project Gutenberg etext 16592.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent copy edits

Recently a number of copy edits have been made by TheSpecialUser (talk · contribs), presumably in preparation for the article's GA nomination. These have not, for the most part, improved the prose. Indeed, in many cases, such as in this edit, they have made it worse, changing idiomatic expressions to unfamiliar or cumbersome ones that have both changed the original meaning and spoiled the flow. I know that TheSpecialUser is a new editor and is full of enthusiasm. This, of course, is to be welcomed. But it seems that he does not have the skills yet to copy edit at the GA level. I have encouraged him elsewhere to train his sights instead on smaller and newer articles and on DYK nominations. After seeing his edits here, this seems ever more true. Please don't misunderstand my intentions here. I am not trying to discourage him, only trying to direct him to articles that are a better fit for his current skill set, and will offer better returns. As his prose skills improve, he can work his way up to GA nominations. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:56, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SpacemanSpiff (talk · contribs) 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article. —SpacemanSpiff 18:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Can I please ask to keep this review open if there are no big problems to speedily decline? I'll try to address the problems raised. Thanks! →TSU ^tp* 18:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

1) Well written

• The article is in need of a copy-edit. Some examples of problems are as follows:
  • "Dyer was convinced that a major insurrection was going on. Thus he banned all meetings. unaware of ban 15,000 to 20,000 people had assembled (which included women, senior citizens and children) at Jallianwala Bagh on Baisakhi(a Sikh festival)"
    • It doesn't read well, it implies that the 15-20k people were all women, children and seniors -- that isn't the case, spaces missing, description for Baisakhi in parenthesis while a wikilink would be better.
  • "British officials in India, ever since the Rebellion of 1857, lived in fear of native conspiracies and revolts; they warned each other the natives were most suspicious when they seemed superficially innocent."
    • A rather cumbersome way to phrase this.
  • Other problems include punctuation.

• The lede is not a summary of the article, instead it provides information that isn't present within the body of the article.
  • "Dyer was convinced that a major insurrection was going on. Thus he banned all meetings."
    • The body of the article says O'Dwyer was the one that believed a revolt was in the making
  • "At Jalliawalla Bagh out of the 1,302 men, women and children slaughtered, 799 (61%) were Sikhs.[3]"
    • A factoid left hanging as it's not explained anywhere in the article.
  • The fatality and wounded counts do not match between the lede, infobox, and the body of the article.
    • The lede actually conflicts with itself, providing three numbers, two of which are explained, but the third finds no mention anywhere. The third number is also in conflict with the infobox.

2) Factually accurate / verifiable

• Why is this site considered a reliable source, especially given what they say on the home page?
• "Revolt was in the air, many Army officers believed, and they prepared for the worst. In Amritsar, more than 15,000 people gathered at Jallianwala Bagh. This situation deteriorated perceptibly during the next few days. Michael O'Dwyer is said to have believed that these were the early and ill-concealed signs of a conspiracy for a coordinated revolt around May, at a time when British troops would have withdrawn to the hills for the summer. The Amritsar massacre, as well as responses preceding and succeeding it, contrary to being an isolated incident, was the end result of a concerted plan of response from the Punjab administration to suppress such a conspiracy.[12] "
  • The source (page 67) provides a much more nuanced interpretation of this and doesn't support some of what's included above.
• Large swathes of unreferenced text
  • "The Legal and Home Members...was cancelled on 29 March 1920."
  • "The Government tried to suppress...December 1919."
  • "A trust was founded in...added to the site."

3) Scope and coverage

• Large parts of the lead up and after effects are not covered.
  • Some of the references included in the article are quite extensive and should be used as a guide for the topics
• Rabindranath Tagore's reaction
  • While Tagore's reaction is notable, the amount of coverage given to it and the associated neglect of pretty much anyone else's falls short of WP:NPOV

4) Neutral, due weight

• The Tagore example from above.
• Excess weight given to O'Dwyer's assassination, there are two other more appropriate articles to cover that in, not here

5) Stability

• Doesn't appear to have any issues out of the ordinary.

6) Image use

• Seems reasonable; however, all images need suitable captions and proper positioning along with the relevant text.

At this point the article fails four of the six listed criteria, and easily fixable against one. I don't believe it's a fix that can be achieved in a hold of a week or two. I haven't done an exhaustive review, just a first cut and I expect the examples I've used are generally indicative of the article. Please let me know if something can be worked out in the next week or two. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for this. Keep it open for 1 week and I'll do my best :) →TSU ^tp* 19:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: Failed, per this note as an addendum to earlier hold request. —SpacemanSpiff 18:07, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Natives

I am a little uncomfortable with the use of the word "the natives" in this article. In its basic meaning, it is obviously accurate, but the way it's being used - maybe it's the syntax - echos the disparaging language of colonialism and has a connotation of savages. I may be wrong - this is entirely subjective. What do others think? --Doric Loon (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Here, it is the disparaging language of colonialism and I don't doubt that it's accurately sourced from the comments which are being described. It's also accurate in its literal sense - we're all natives of somewhere. I'd say its use was appropriate here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Numbers of shots and casualties

In military actions usually many small-arms rounds are fired for each casualty. The figures given in the article imply approximately one casualty (killed or wounded) per round, which seems unrealistically high. Maybe I'm wrong, and firing into a crowd this dense can support the figures given (with possibly more than one casualty from some rounds), though there were deaths from trampling too.

from article:

• stated casualties (killed and wounded): about 1500
• riflemen: 50
• rounds: 1650
• rounds/man: 1650/50 = 33
• duration: 10 minutes
• rounds per man per minute: <4

I started out thinking that there might be a typo in the number of rounds fired (16,500), but the reference quotes Dyer's report "my party fired 1650 rounds". In another part of the book referenced it was stated that 1650 was derived from the unfired rounds and the "empty cases the troops picked up", and that "all of the empty cases could not have been picked up before the troops left the Bagh".

The only change I can think of to the text, without engaging in "original research" is to word it to show that 1650 is a figure given by Dyer, rather than an agreed fact. Perhaps it would be useful to know how many rounds per man were usually issued to troops in this sort of situation, and the typical rate of fire. Pol098 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There must be some sort of "historian" accepted number. Perhaps an authoritative recently written and scholarly history of British India might be the right place to look. --regentspark (comment) 14:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, your trampling deaths addendum reminds me that many people died when they jumped into the well at the site. The 'number of rounds' analysis is probably not a good idea anyway. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, the trampling etc. may well have caused most of the deaths, and the deaths-per-round analysis is also original research. It's probably best to just leave it out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Celebrated hero?

I have removed the sentence which refers to Dyer becoming a celebrated hero in Britain. He certainly had his supporters but that is an entirely different thing. To my knowledge there was never a celebration of his actions unlike Nelson for example who is celebrated on Trafalgar Night (21st October) or Guy Fawkes on the 5th November.--Ykraps (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

well he wasn't Napoleon either, but his actions were widely supported says the scholarly literature and he was celebrated in numerous dinners and toasts and speeches. Rjensen (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, he was widely supported and sources support that (as did my edits) but I'm struggling to find a source that talks about a celebration.--Ykraps (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of dead

Am I the only one troubled by the recently upgraded estimate of the number of dead from the previous 370-1,000 to 10-20,000? Apart from the numbers being unrealisticly high (let's remember that we're talking about the actions of fewer than 100 soldiers with bolt-action rifles over a period of ten minutes), various parts of the article now quote widely varying estimates of the number of souls lost. --Malatinszky (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You're quite right. I fixed it. Rjensen (talk) 13:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes that are needed

As discussed on my talk page with few other editors there are some changes that are required here, for example the crawling and whipping order should be part of aftermath not prelude. The first para of the massacre section needs to be edited because it is written that people were protesting against the crawling order in Jallianwala Bagh but in reality the crawling orderds were given 6 days after the massacre.--sarvajna (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that, because it happened after, it shouldn't really appear in the prelude section but it doesn't really fit under any of the other, current headings either. Are you suggesting we write another section?--Ykraps (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking of having an "Aftermath" section and include those things also his suspension would come under this Aftermath section. Your thoughts? -sarvajna (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much my thinking too. "Aftermath" would be a main heading with "Reaction", "Hunter commission", "Demonstration at Gujranwala" and "Assassination of Michael O'Dwyer" as sub-headings. Current sub-headings (Tagore's response and British responses) could be converted to sub-sub-headings but I humbly suggest there are already too many headings.--Ykraps (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many heading, may be we can just sum it up under reaction, let us do away with headings like "Tagore's reaction" because some other editor might think that we need a heading for Gandhi's reaction and hey how about Nehru's reaction as well. We can prepare a draft somewhere and than make changes.--sarvajna (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite, the last time this article failed GAN, it was criticised for giving undue weight to Tagore's reaction. We can fix that simply by removing the heading. I'm not sure it's such a good idea to transfer a completed draft into the article; you are running the risk of being reverted wholesale. Better, I think, to make lots of small edits then try to gain some consensus on the talk page if they are opposed. You have probably noticed that I have been recently reverted when I attempted to make a sentence agree with its source. Feel free to disagree however. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a sentence currently at the end of the Aftermath section "Cloake reports that despite the official rebuke, many Britons "thought him a hero for saving the rule of British law in India."[40]". This is out of context, and should be moved up to follow the second paragraph of the section. Otherwise it reads as if Britons thought of Tagore as a hero.24.108.28.165 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Move

Just a reminder that

• the page should never have ended up here: it was moved in the first place without consensus and using cut-and-paste;
• Amritsar Massacre or massacre remains the WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH name for this event;
• the previous discussions at both of the archives had clear majorities in favor of returning the article to Amritsar Massacre or massacre
  • Support: Kafziel, Mangoe, Dabbler, Septentrionalis, Stonemad, Herostratus, Will74205, Narson, AjaxSmack, Dekimasu, add me here
  • Oppose: Ganeshk, Ragib, Nobleeagle, a possibly sockpuppeting IP at 12.180.4.162, Jvalant, Anthony Appleyard
• which opposing vote was bolstered via vote stacking at an Indian noticeboard; and
• the admin closed the most recent discussion with a claimed "no consensus" by admittedly ignoring the actual editors and citing his own Google Books search... which would show Amritsar at least twice as popular even if the numbers on such searches were reliable. (They're not, actually: Google doesn't bother providing real numbers for anything except Scholar and Ngram. Scholar also shows Amritsar at least twice as common as where the page is now.)

It's time to fix this. — LlywelynII 15:47, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128143651/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1422/14220500.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1422/14220500.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579959/amritsar_massacre.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Number of men reported to have served in the British services is preposterous

Why hasn't his been fixed?

Am I right that there was only one British person there? That is, Dyer? Seadowns (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Dyer was not "british". He was mixed race. I'm a direct relation

Elvisbrandenburgkremmen (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Dyer was a British subject, So for that matter, were the Indians. They had been since 1876 when Indians were accorded the same citizenship status as the rest of the British Empire.

What I wondered was, what was the racial make-up of the force which carried out the massacre, and in particular were there any white soldiers from Britain in it? Seadowns (talk) 23:55, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

British India

An IP editor changed "British India" to "India." While one can appreciate the national pride that motivated the changes, the wikilinks differentiate distinct periods of history. Rhadow (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

To me, "British India" means India other than the princely states. Seadowns (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

British-India was not India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.62.61 (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

The removed history

QUOTE: If the violence in Amritsar had entered into a mass violence in which Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs pitched against each other, there is no doubt a few 100 hundred thousands would have died. END OF QUOTE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.62.61 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Role in independence

The view that the massacre helped lead to independence should not be presented as fact because some historians have argued that greater self-government was inevitable after World War I. (86.149.119.144 (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC))

The

viewpoint possessed by a minority of historians, as to Hans Raj, ought be covered .... ∯WBG^converse 15:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Appears to be two Hans Raj... 1. Hans Raj and 2. Hans Raj Vohra...both approvers, one in 1919 and one in 1930. Whispyhistory (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Troops involved

It would be helpful to know more about the troops. E.g., Was Dyer the only officer present? Was he the only white person present? Were there NCOs? Were Gurkhas involved, as often said? Seadowns (talk) 13:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No edit summary

No edit summary 117.193.135.247 (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Sst

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, took place on 13 April 1919. A large peaceful crowd had gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar, Punjab to protest against the arrest of pro-Indian independence leaders Dr. Saifuddin Kitchlew and Dr. Satya Pal. In response to the public gathering, the Anglo-Indian Brigadier R. E. H. Dyer surrounded the Bagh with British Indian army units. The Jallianwala Bagh could only be exited on one side, as its other three sides were enclosed by buildings. After blocking the exit with his troops, he ordered them to shoot at the crowd, continuing to fire even as the protestors tried to flee. The troops kept on firing until their ammunition was exhausted.[4] Estimates of those killed vary between 379 and 1500+ people[1] and over 1,200 other people were injured of whom 192 were seriously injured.[ 2405:204:1489:1990:0:0:2AA4:90A4 (talk) 04:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Map of 1919 Punjab

Wrong map is put in the infobox. If we are going to put any map, it should be of the undivided Punjab of 1919, not 2022. Venkat TL (talk) 11:48, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

The Rowlatt Act

On 12 April the infamous jallianwlla Bagh took place. On that day large crowd gathered in the enclosed ground of jallianwlla Bagh. 103.225.127.17 (talk) 14:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

jallianwala bagh

In this incident 379 people were killed Faw620 (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

See the article - the casualties are already discussed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The use of the word "even" as an adverb

"After blocking the exit with his troops, he ordered them to shoot at the crowd, continuing to fire even as the protestors tried to flee."

What is the purpose of the word even in this sentence? Is it to emphasize something extreme or surprising? Not that I'm complaining, I'm just confused. 2600:4041:552C:3200:204A:FA41:5C51:8EE (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Even " carries here an element of surprise or astonishment that the order to fire was given even though the crowd was dispersing. The sentence could be written without the word but it would not work as well. Spinney Hill (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

"Colonel Dyer" or "General Dyer"

Yes, the introductory paragraph does mention that R. E. H. Dyer was a temporary brigadier general at the time of the massacre. But the article goes on to refer to him as both "Colonel Dyer" and "General Dyer" without any apparent consistency (e.g., he's called "Colonel Dyer" in the description of some events when he actually would have still held the rank of General).

I found this somewhat confusing and think it's possible other readers will, too. However, I don't know what an appropriate solution would be and don't want to try to impose one, so I hope a more experienced editor will take this into consideration. It might help to refer to him simply as "Dyer" more often throughout? 2600:100A:B10D:5AA4:0:4C:D4F5:DF01 (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with just referring to him as Dyer. In the beginning General is fine, but all other mentions should just say Dyer. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)