Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
	This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
	This article is maintained by the Punjab (India) workgroup.
More information about this article... High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale by the India project. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale by the Indian history project. Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale by the Punjab (India) project.

WikiProject Echo has identified Jallianwala Bagh massacre as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Kannada language Wikipedia.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Indian military history task force

See also archive

Contents 1 Old commments 2 Page merged 3 WP:FAC 4 Civil Surgeon Dr Smith's count 5 british bias 6 British bias? Come now! 7 Move proposal 8 Old Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.2 Discussion 9 Reaction Section 10 further modifications 11 Bias 12 Page move 13 Requested move 13.1 Discussion 14 Fair use rationale for Image:Dyre.jpg 15 A Simple Edit and The Massacre of British Pride? 16 Casualties

[edit] Old commments

No, there's some false information in this article.

Yes it is deeply slanted and non objective

[edit] Page merged

The content of this page has been replaced with the contents of Amritsar_massacre as it contained all the content this article contained but was far better in organization, content and quality. The original page has been turned into a redirect as this is by far the more common name for the incident. Thank you. Loom91 09:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, that cut-and-paste move has left all of the edit history behind. It would have been better to ask for help at WP:RM. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FAC

From a British perspective, I've never heard it called anything other than the Amritsar massacre; but anyway, what a great article. I'm not sure what the comments above are referring to. Are the authors thinking of taking this to FAC? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Surgeon Dr Smith's count

I hope the recent changes I added haven't changed the meaning of the introduction (below). I was wondering, does anyone know whether Smith's number was with respect to the dead or wounded? I wasn't sure so I left the point ambiguous. Modify 07:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jallianwala Bagh massacre, also known as the Amritsar massacre, was named after the Jallianwala Bagh (Garden) in Amritsar, where, on 13 April 1919, British Indian Army soldiers opened fire on an unarmed gathering of men, women and children. Official sources place the casualties at 379. According to private sources, the number was over 1000, with more than 1200 wounded [1], and Civil Surgeon Dr Smith indicated that they were over 1800 [2]. The figures were never fully ascertained for political reasons [citation needed].

Smith was referring to 'casualties' NOT fatalities. The British claimed 379 killed and probably 3 times as many wounded which would come to somewhere around 1500 casualties, Smith reckoned 300 more. This would seem to have since been used to claim nearly 2000 killed!

 It says they fired on men, women and children.  However, no women are mentioned among the dead, just men, boys and an infant.

[edit] british bias

The article seems to be biased in the favor of the british . The 'the gathering' section in perticular. please check.

[edit] British bias? Come now!

THis aicle is propandistic rather than factual in tone. There is bias evident, but it most assuredly is not a British one!

[edit] Move proposal

[edit] Discussion

• Why don't just revert? --Will74205 06:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Establishing a firm consensus for the move rather than acting unilaterally will help prevent others from being successful if they want to move it back. Admins like to see evidence that it was an agreed change. On the other hand its been a week or so now. Dabbler 17:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it's good that you didn't "just revert". Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I find this one very tricky. Unlike others where there is just a difference between the way it is written in English (like "Wien" vs "Vienna"), here there is additional issue that people from India haven't heard "Amritsar Massacre" before, while people from west haven't heard of "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre" before. I guess this started as the British found it difficult to pronounce as "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre", so historically they named it "Amritsar Massacre" (after the town in which the massacre took place). In case of India, there was no need to look for alternatives, so everywhere it was mentioned by its original name, without any reference to the western way of referring. The west, at the same time, paid no attention to the Indian way. The internet, historically dominated by the west, shows bias towards the west. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This has been known throughout most of the Western world as the Amritsar Massacre for a lot longer than Google has been around. Sure, Google results can be manipulated by marketing plans and linkspam, but I don't think too many people have a financial interest in using Amritsar instead of Jallianwala Bagh. In this case, it's simply an example of common usage. "Google books" and "Google scholar" support those results. I'm not suggesting changing the name on the Kannada Wikipedia, just the English one. You have to consider the audience. Kafziel ^Talk 19:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have read it in "English language" history books and documents published from India and Bangladesh. If you take a count, India has more English language speakers (may not be native, but still people who use English in everyday usage) than, say, Britain or Canada, or USA. I am not saying that "Amritsar Massacre" is a marketing ploy to stuff google rankings, but google doesn't cover all of the web. Even if we do a google search, "Amritsar Massacre" yields 36.2 thousand results. "Jallianwala bagh Massacre" gets 18.5 thousand, but if you consider the spelling variants, the total number goes up to 25 thousand or so. Therefore, it is not a definite tilt towards "Amritsar Massacre". Now, considering the audience, we definitely should go for "Jallianwala Bagh Massacre" (more English speakers in India than UK+Canada combined), and I doubt the US readers care about either name anyway. Thanks. --Ragib 20:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm from the US, and I care. So I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. And this isn't just English we're talking about, anyway. The French, Italian, and German Wikipedias all use Amritsar. I've been involved with other South Asian-related articles in the past, and I always have to chant to myself "there is no cabal, there is no cabal" despite the vote stacking and sock puppetry that tends to run rampant with these things, so believe me when I say I was very hesitant to suggest this move. But Amritsar is the right name, and it's important, and it was improperly moved here without discussion, and clearly I'm not alone in thinking so because the only "oppose" votes came from here. Kafziel ^Talk 20:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

because the only "oppose" votes came from here

And what precisely is wrong with that? If you read what's written here, that was a very straight note on that this move was suggested, without any comment on how people should vote. If you are accusing me or anyone of votestacking or being part of the Cabal, please say it directly rather than making indirect comments. And stick to the subject rather than commenting on imaginary Cabals. Thank you. --Ragib 20:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I said vote stacking is what usually happens in South Asia-related articles, so I was reluctant to open this discussion. But if you're saying that post is vote stacking, I won't argue with you. I think it would be considered vote stacking if I posted a link to this on British military history project or something, because the resulting votes would obviously not be unbiased representatives of the general community. Kafziel ^Talk 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I said vote stacking is what usually happens in South Asia-related articles,

I find this comment quite objectionable. If you have specific comments on specific articles, please comment on those, but generalizing a whole region (or articles related to the region) as examples of "vote stacking" is a quite biased attitude. I guess under the same argument, the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting page would be a tool for vote stacking!! --Ragib 21:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with that. It serves to stack votes without the annoying user talk page spam. I don't see any other use for sorting deletion votes by category except to encourage arguments and one-sided discussions. Most editors on AfD participate in a wide variety of discussions. They're neutral, and take each case as it comes and judge it on its own merits. On the other hand, presenting an issue to a Wikiproject almost always precipitates a rush of foot-stomping, defensive voters who are all fired up to defend value X against infidel Y. I'm not saying it only happens with South Asia articles, but it does happen and this is a case in point. I mean, am I wrong? Did you not all vote within minutes of the posting at the project, and within minutes of each other? Did you not all vote exactly the same way? Did any support come from the India project? Not that I see. If I'm wrong, if there's a vote I missed, let me know. It's nothing personal; I've also seen it happen on World of Warcraft articles, U.S. Marine Corps articles, fmr. Yugoslavia articles, Native American articles, and Pokemon articles. I see it more often on Asian articles because I work on more of them, and because I run across more of them on AfD. Kafziel ^Talk 22:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Had I NOT edited this talk page several days ago, before I voted? Do I not have the talk page on my watchlist? Do I control how and when other people votes and how they vote? Nope. FYI, I'm not an Indian, and not part of WikiProject India. I do have the India-related notice board in my watchlist because of a comment posted there to which I was referred to, and replied. But in any case, I have had this talk page in my watchlist since Sep 23. So, I hope you'd stop accusing others of vote stacking etc. You should stick to the arguments on the issue, (which you were doing just fine, before you started seeing "Cabals"). Thank you. --Ragib 22:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I was one who posted it. I found this when I was checking any moves on WP:RM that I can help with. My intention was not to vote-stack or gather cabal. What I did was already in practice. Deletion discussions are regularly posted on sub-page for editors with Indian interest. We do not have a similar mechanism for Moves yet. So had to do that. Please do not resort to accussing others when the discussion is not going your way. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See my reply above. And this wasn't an accusation; it was an observation. You wouldn't be offended if you didn't think there was anything shady about it. Lately people have taken to posting AfDs, move requests, etc on project pages. The results are easy to see, whether it's the India page or the World of Warcraft page. People are members of a given project because they all have similar feelings about the direction those articles should take, so it's no surprise when they all show up en masse and vote the same way. And I wouldn't say the discussion isn't going my way. I made my points before I ever mentioned the "cabal"; the fact that both of you chose to ignore them (because the discussion isn't going your way?) and take what I said out of context doesn't mean I'm accusing anyone of anything. Kafziel ^Talk 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I supported the move because that is what I have always heard it called as a native English speaker with some interest in India and its history, though I was aware that the actual site within Amritsar was called something like Jallianwala Bagh, I doubt if I could have spelled it properly. Basically though, redirects are cheap, so people typing in Amritsar Massacre, Amritsar massacre etc. will end up in the right place. However, the person that did the first move did it poorly and left many links to Amritsar Massacre. So why not go in and clean up all the old links and make sure that all possible variants point to the one page. Dabbler 20:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler, WP:CUTPASTE move can be easily fixed and redirected to the correct article. The discussion is about what the article title should be. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

(reply to Dabbler)The point isn't really that it was a cut-and-paste move anyway; the article was moved without consensus in the first place. It should have been moved back to its original location (Amritsar Massacre) without debate and then consensus should try to be reached on moving it here. Kafziel ^Talk 21:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dabbler said I was aware that the actual site within Amritsar was called something like Jallianwala Bagh, I doubt if I could have spelled it properly, that's exactly why it's not known as the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre in some Western nations. They preferred the simpler term: Amritsar Massacre. But the fact remains that it was originally called the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and in South Asia and to South Asians, is still called the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Another positive of keeping it here is that more people will come to know the proper term. If they type in Amritsar massacre, it'll redirect to here and then they (regardless of region) will come to know both the Western term and the Indian term. However, perhaps the reason why you think there is a cabal is because if an Indian person would type in Jallianwala Bagh Massacre and see it redirects to Amritsar Massacre, they may just think to themselves "That's not what I've been told the name was", and you may get someone else randomly doing a cut-and-paste move to this page. Thus I oppose to proposed move. The Cabal accusations/observations are baseless, the noticeboard didn't tell us how to vote, it told us to take a look as it relates to the subcontinent. The reason why South Asians here are voting oppose is because that's what we've been told the name was throughout our lives. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, without discussing any cabals or vote stacking, the fact remains that there are a number of administrators here who know that the right thing to do when a unilateral move is contentious is to put it back where it started and then seek consensus. This discussion shouldn't even need to take place. If I renamed this article "Jallianwala Bagh fusillade" we wouldn't need to wait for a vote to move it back to its proper location. It would simply be put back and I'd be told to seek consensus. That's what should have been done here, and now that there are a number of admins in this discussion, the page should already be back at Amritsar massacre and we should be discussing whether or not to move it to Jallianwala Bagh. Why hasn't that happened? Kafziel ^Talk 00:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't patronise me, Ganeshk, by assuming I don't know what the discussion is about. I know what we were discussing and I was pointing out that it is a fairly pointless discussion, as redirects exist and are cheap. If you cannot understand that, then I suggest you re-read what I wrote as it was quite clear English which is the language used on this Wikipedia version. I would prefer Amritsar Massacre as that is what I have always known it as. However, if both names are in the first sentence and the redirects are in place the actual title name should not be a serious impediment to anyone locating it. The time spent arguing here would be better used in tidying up all the double redirect links that can be found in the "What links here" section. Dabbler 02:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to patronise or insult you. I am sorry if you felt so. I voted my preference. Like the Anon says, local preferences are given a priority when naming articles. Chennai and Kolkata instead of Madras and Calcutta as they are known in the West. Anyway, either way is fine with me. - Ganeshk (talk) 03:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a very condescending tone to use Dabbler: I wrote as it was quite clear English which is the lnguage used on this Wikipedia version --Anon 02:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

And it was in response to a remarkably patronising comment about me. I consider that I was quite restrained, especially when I was trying to be conciliatory and not gratuitously insulting as Ganeshk seemed and Anon definitely is. Dabbler 02:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you felt this way but Ganesh had no intentional motives of being patronizing. And now you accuse me of being overtly patronizing, after simply pointing out that your statement was more condescending that what Ganesh had to say? I suggest you please do Assume good faith and stop accusing editors of being patronizing. I'm also curious as to what u meant by 'restrained'? --Anon 04:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well we are discussing the title here, and the point to moot is if the local naming of the event takes preference or the one prevalent in western literature. Mind you, both are in English so the München/Munich case does not really apply here. According to wikipedia standards for articles, spelling and syntax used in the local flavour of English take precendence here. Secondly, I dont see a cabal here. Most of those who are opposing here either are admins, or have at least a featured article to their name... in other words they are experienced wikipedians. I don't think they would stoop to the level of forming a cabal for no rhyme or reason and to protect some narrow interests. The Indian wikipedians have earned plaudits from many in wikipedia for the team work and the number of featured articles, right from the featured article director himself. There have also been disagreements, and have been sorted out in an amicable way. In other words people here do not follow a herd mentality. They do think! --Anon 02:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a category entitled Amritsar_massacre which, I believe, serves little to no purpose. Just to let you know that the category should be renamed based on the results of this debate as well. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 02:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• There is certainly no consensus at the moment for the move, as voiced in the survey and the discussion; by default the article will be kept where it is. I encourage all of you to cool down and realize that we're discussing what to name an article, and that 99% of everything done here can be reversed. Teke ^(talk) 05:28, 29 September 2006 (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.

[edit] Reaction Section

I am referring to this part

Some senior British officers and many civilians in India applauded his suppression of 'another Indian Mutiny'.

Err- where is the source? And who precisely were the Indians? And what exactly is "many"? I shall be removing the section about many civilians in India applauding this incident unless there is some claim to the contrary. Thanks. Jvalant 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference is to British civilians in India applauding the incident. Dabbler 15:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] further modifications

I have made some changes to this article. Lets try to show the facts rather than putting an ideological slant on things.

1. I have added the buildings that were torched - town hall, banks, telegraph office & a railway good shed. 2. I have added that the railway station was saved by a detachment of Gurkhas. 3. I have put in some details on the Europeans murdered# 4. I have removed the eroneous claim that '300 Indians' were killed in the initial unrest - before the actual massacre. There is absolutely nothing to back this claim up. Initial reports suggested 9 rioters were killed, later figures were between 8 and 20. There were only small numbers of troops in the city at this point. 300 is a ridiculous claim. 5. I have removed the mention of 'men, women and children' - lets just have 'people'. 6. I have removed the claim that people coming into the city were not aware of martial law and the previous rioting and deaths. The whole of the Punjab was suffering unrest, even if this had passed people by then as soon as they had reached the city they would have become aware. The whole city would have been aflame with news and rumour. 7. I have altered the claim that it was purely Gurkhas who commited the massacre. Half of the riflemen were Sikhs. 8. I have removed the claim that it was 'almost certainly much higher' than the official casualty statistics. Nothing almost certain about it. 9. I have added that 1650 rounds were fired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.203.214.141 (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Material added back which was deleted without explanation. Dabbler 16:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

How is that bias against the British? We come to India and make the indigineous population second class citizens in their own country? Then we call them terrorists for fighting against us, furthermore we denote them as mutineers when they want their freedom? What did you expect to read? How the white man ordered Indian troops to open fire on a crowd of thousands and kill only 10 people? Please try and understand, everywhere the White man, someone is being oppressed. In Indian and non-european text books, it is known as Jalliwanwala massacre not Amritsar. Having come from Egypt, I can certify that it is known as that there too. No one cares that google has only 17k+ hits for it. If you an Indian search engine alone, you will notice that over far many more hits have occured that its White-Man's counter part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.200.46 (talk • contribs)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Requested move

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)