Talk:Assassination of Indira Gandhi/Archive 1

Archive 1

"After they were arrested"?

"As she was walking to be interviewed by the British actor Peter Ustinov filming a documentary for Irish television, she passed a wicket gate, guarded by Satwant Singh and Beant Singh. They then opened fire with Sten submachine guns, after they were arrested by her other bodyguards."

I'm not too familiar with this case, but I'm almost certain that they didn't kill her after they were arrested. Could somebody closer clean this up a bit? The Last Melon (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it says at the end that one of them was killed during the assassination - Would they really have been arrested then shot? Someone who knows what happened should sort this out... Cambion (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sikhs v. Sikh extremists

I think as a compromise, the introduction can stay "Sikh extremists" but link to Sikhs not Sikh extremism. The part people are going to be interested in is the Sikhism part, not the extremism article. The extremism article is already in the "See also" section since it's not really that much on point but is worth reading. I would be open to linking the extremism as well, but I think it's excessive. I would ask that people comment here first before warring again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I will go along with your redits Ricky. It should be noted that sources at the time, thought the people who shot her were extremists, but it later emerged that they were indeed her bodyguards who wanted revenge for the assault on the Golden Temple. Subsequent trial of the assailant that survived and alleged accomplice, revealed no links to any extremist organisations. Thanks.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be an extremist organization to be an extremist. But anyway, I'm fine with the current set up. Thanks Ricky. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

By your definition, every Sikh (Hindu and Muslim) who was against the storming of the Golden Temple is an extremist. Welcome to Satanoids world. --Sikh-history (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't follow, and my definition is irrelevant anyway. The source calls them extremist. Also, are you suggesting that I am Satanoid? Unless you are willing to prove it, stop it; a hinted accusation is a particularly severe form of abuse, especially because the accuser can often hide behind a facade of innocence and thus avoid consequences. You just made a similar suggestion on Ricky's talk page [1] Ricky, if you also think that Sikh-history is implicitly suggesting that I am Satanoid, please give him a stern warning. Even if he wasn't suggesting that, his "Welcome to Satanoids world" creates bad faith, to use Sikh-history's words. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I can think whatever I want. I live in a democracy. Just for the record, I am e-mailing Professor Hardgrave, to find out what he meant by "extremist, as throughout the trial of the accused and his co-defendant, there was no suggestion he or his co defendant was an extremist. Initially, reports came out from the BBC when Gandhi was shot the assailants were extremists, but he bBC subsequently retracted that. You are probably using old and incorrect information. But lets see. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 17:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not Extremists

I e-mail Professor Hardgrave and got the following response:

Dear Mr. ********,

Your point is well-taken, and I think revenge would be appropriate in characterizing their motives. I do not recall any evidence that the guards had previously been associated with any "extremist" groups. Best wishes, R. L. Hardgrave

On Dec 18, 2008, at 11:18 AM, ****** Singh wrote:

I have a question regarding [index.php?title=Indira_Gandhi_assassination&oldid=258738864#cite_ref-Hardgrave_0-0 ^] Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. "India in 1984: Confrontation, Assassination, and Succession." Asian Survey, Vol. 25, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1984: Part II (Feb., 1985), pp. 131-144. – where you state "and the assassina-tion of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by Sikh extremists from within her own security guard."

I was just curious and wanted to know where you managed to find out her two security guards were “extremists”. I have been studying the motives for this killing and it appears to have been revenge rather than any form of “extremism”.

Thanks

****** Singh *******

Professor Hardgrave says, "associated with any "extremist" groups." We've been over this before. Again, not being associated with extremist "groups" is not necessarily the same as not being an extremist. Hence I cannot agree with your recent edit counter to the consensus fostered by Ricky above, and so I will revert it. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Using terms like Whitewash is extremly offensive.Maybe you have some kind of problem understanding English? "I think revenge would be appropriate in characterizing their motives". Tell you what e-mail Hardgrave yourself. Hardgrave was big enough to admit when he was wrong, but your ego will not allow you to do that. Like I said before, by your definition, every Sikh, man, woman and child is an extremist.Anyway, Professor Hardgrave will be here soon hopefully to comment on this article. I have reverted back till then. Maybe your Baby Turkey should be renamed a Zebra by your definitions and logic. Also read Kehar Singh Versus the Union of India --Sikh-history (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Some other points to note:

• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE3DC103FF93BA35752C0A96F948260 - Motive was revenge.

• www.india-today.com/jain/vol3/chap7.html The Jain Commision

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE6DD1E3DF934A35752C0A96F948260&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FSubjects%2FR%2FReligion%20and%20Belief - “The Government says that the two men were part of a Sikh plot of revenge against”

• www.sikhreview.org/june2001/chronicle.htm Interesting insite by a leading journalist and MP

• http://www.lfhri.org/Pages/Library/articles.htm Lawyers for human rights question sentencing. – “Many in India feel that Kehar Singh, and Satwant Singh were wrongly convicted and hanged. A day may come when the Supreme Court too regrets its confirmation of Kehar Singh’s death sentence. But can it then give back Kehar Singh his life ? Why then persist with this pretence of infallibility which is assumed by the courts when they sentence people to death ? Be it as it may, but why did they decide to distinguish the same crime if committed by Kishori, the person who burnt alive four members of a Sikh family in the anti-sikh riots in New Delhi, and commuted his death sentence to that of life imprisonment. Was the life of those four sikhs less valuable than that of Indira Gandhi ?”

--Sikh-history (talk) 12:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh-history, I don't mind if you say "revenge" too, but I insist that we say "extremist" since that is in the source. Perhaps they were called "extremist" because they thought murdering the leader of India an appropriate way to express discontent with the Indian army forcing militants out of the shrine? I'm not sure, but it doesn't matter. "Extremist" is supported, and saying that they weren't part of extremist "groups" does not necessarily contradict this. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 19:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

A baby turkey, why spread confusion? WP: ILIKEIT? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 19:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

My colleagye e-mailed Professor Hardgrave and the conversation reveals he is not sure they are extremist in belief, so the source cannot be taken seriously:

,

Sorry, but I can't help you there. I did not follow this very closely, probably no more than what INDIA TODAY provided in its news coverage. Bob

On Dec 23, 2008, at 10:47 AM, wrote:

Hi Professor,

One last question. In the subsequent trials when they were convicted, was there any evidence that they were extremist in belief?

Thanks

---

From: R. L. Hardgrave [mailto:rlh@austin.utexas.edu]

Sent: 23 December 2008 14:53

Subject: Re: Hi, I have a question? - India in 1984: Confrontation, Assassination, and Succession

Dear ,

I would rather stay out of this exchange on Wikipedia, but it seems clear that the assassins' action was taken in revenge. We may never know their earlier associations or contacts, but as I stated in my earlier email, I do not recall reading that the two security guards had been members of an extremist group. I hope all is resolved amicably. Best wishes, Bob

On Dec 23, 2008, at 2:54 AM, wrote:

Hi Professor Hardgrave,

Sorry to bother you again, but I was wondering whether you could help me on wikipedia. I am trying to edit an article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indira_Gandhi_assassination

There is another editor insisting from your source that Indira Gandhi’s bodyguard were extremists and their motivation was extremism rather than revenge.

Thanks

--Sikh-history (talk) 08:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Roadahead, inserting the word extremist makes it appear as if these people were part of some big extremist movement. This very same notion seemed to prejudice the case Kehar Singh vs The Union of India. In any case, this is pointless. Professor Hardgrave has stated they were not extremist. He stated he cannnot be sure they were extremist? So how valid is the source? Sounds like calling a Baby Turkey and elephant? "but it seems clear that the assassins' action was taken in revenge." --Sikh-history (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

He has only emphasized again that he knows of no connection to extremist groups. He did not affirm the idea that they were still not extremist in belief, despite your question. For Professor Hardgrave to support "revenge" as a motive in no way contradicts "extremist." It is a false dichotomy to insist that it is either one or the other. To offer my own reasoning to help you, think of "revenge" as the motive, but with "extremist" choosing the means: murder. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved from article

The following text is unnecessary. The motive of revenge is clear, "extremist" is too general and "one article says..."?.

One article has identified the attackers as extremists, however, most sources highlight the motives of the assassination as solely revenge.

--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

How is it "too general?" What makes something "too" general? Where is this given as a reason to remove reliably sourced content?

The "one article says ... other articles say ..." format is not appropriate anyway. None of the sources make a statement equivalent to "one article says ..."; this is original research. Editors aren't supposed to survey the sources in this manner within the article. It is original research to make a general statement about how the sources treat any topic unless this summary is given by a reliable source; let reliable sources give us this summary treatment and then we can include it.

Anyway, facing further concerted efforts to remove the uncontroversial (sources do not contest "extremist") reliably sourced "extremist" description for these murderers, I will simply amass more sources to back the description, though there is still no valid reason to remove or downplay Hardgrave. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry this is just nonsense. Professor Hardgrave has politely retracted his statement on the assailants were "extremist". You are hell bent on proving they are. The BBC initially thought they were extremist, and retracted it. India Today (which) Hardgrave has refrered to makes to refrence to "exremists" shooting Gandhi. Kehar Singh Vs The Union of India, they established the attackers were not extremist. You have been proven wrong.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"I do not recall reading that the two security guards had been members of an extremist group." There was no retraction. He said "group." When you asked him specifically about "evidence" that they were extremist "in belief," he provided anything but a retraction, stating that he couldn't help you since his treatment of the item was similar to that of news coverage. Please, show where he actually retracts his statement, because right now you haven't proven anything. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 04:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A baby turkey, Hardgrave stating "I do not recall reading that the two security guards had been members of an extremist group." is enough evidence he has no support/evidence for the use of word "extremist" that he used in his article. You are taking "I like it" to new limits even after Hardgrave refused the support of "extremist" word and said revenge seems to be the clear motive. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

He did not say "extremist groups" in his article. He said "extremist." That he states that he knows of no evidence that they were in "extremist groups" does not at all retract the statement that they were "extremists." I've already explained this a number of times yet you insist upon an interpretation that does not follow from any proper understanding of English. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 19:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A baby turkey, I'm not expecting you to evaluate my understanding of English. Hopefully, the following communication (reproduced below) with Prof. Hardgrave on this will help understand the semantics better regarding which information Prof. Hardgrave is supportive of and which not. (stress mine)

Singh: I have a question regarding [index.php?title=Indira_Gandhi_assassination&oldid=258738864#cite_ref-Hardgrave_0-0 ^] Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. "India in 1984: Confrontation, Assassination, and Succession." Asian Survey, Vol. 25, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1984: Part II (Feb., 1985), pp. 131-144. – where you state "and the assassina-tion of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi by Sikh extremists from within her own security guard." I was just curious and wanted to know where you managed to find out her two security guards were “extremists”.
Prof. Hardgrave: Your point is well-taken, and I think revenge would be appropriate in characterizing their motives. I do not recall any evidence that the guards had previously been associated with any "extremist" groups.
Singh: One last question. In the subsequent trials when they were convicted, was there any evidence that they were extremist in belief?
Prof. Hardgrave: Sorry, but I can't help you there. I did not follow this very closely, probably no more than what INDIA TODAY provided in its news coverage.
Singh: Sorry to bother you again, but I was wondering whether you could help me on wikipedia. I am trying to edit an article [2]. There is another editor insisting from your source that Indira Gandhi’s bodyguard were extremists and their motivation was extremism rather than revenge.
Prof. Hardgrave: I would rather stay out of this exchange on Wikipedia, but it seems clear that the assassins' action was taken in revenge. We may never know their earlier associations or contacts, but as I stated in my earlier email, I do not recall reading that the two security guards had been members of an extremist group. I hope all is resolved amicably.

Once again you are going to new heights in your "I like it" approach and insisting to use the interpretation of which Prof. Hardgrave clearly has no support. Please note that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have read this material already, and it still does not support your the conclusion that there was some sort of "retraction." You have failed to point out any passage here that shows a retraction by Professor Hardgrave. Sikh-history asked him about "in belief," but Hardgrave chooses not to retract his description, instead letting Sikh-history know that he will not help him there. As for your underline of "it seems clear that the assassins' action was taken in revenge," again, there is little reason to disagree with "revenge" as a motive or to think that it somehow precludes the assassins being "extremist." This false dichotomy seems to have been first introduced by Sikh-history but it remains invalid. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 05:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You clearly are reading selectively. Professor Hardgrave cannot be any clearer. He has been gracious enough to retract statements pertaining to extremists. yOu are still hell bent on proving they are. Why are you seeking to re-write history? . As the Professor has stated "but it seems clear that the assassins' action was taken in revenge." --Sikh-history (talk) 11:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

He stated he knew of no evidence of membership in extremist "groups," but refused to retract "in belief" despite specific questioning to this end by you. Again, his support of "revenge" as a motive does not somehow render it impossible for these criminal murderers to be extremist. There is nothing "selective" about this reading; I've reviewed the entirety of the correspondence you posted and could not any text directly supporting the claimed retraction. If you think that my reading is "selective," please quote the passage that directly supports your claimed retraction. I will not pretend that not being in an extremist "group" makes it impossible to be "extremist," since that doesn't at all follow from his text or anything else, for that matter. I also will not adhere to the false dichotomy suggesting that "extremists" couldn't possibly take "revenge" by murdering a politician. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 23:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A baby turkey, wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate and loosely collected information; least on a sensitive topics where the use of a term is unexplained. Wikipedia is not a mirror site of keywords used everywhere. Give up the I like it approach, no one is expecting a legal document from Prof. Hardgrave for the retraction, his stand is clear from his words - "Revenge would be appropriate". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason to believe that seeking "revenge" precludes the assassins being "extremist." Based upon his article in the academic journal, I could conclude correctly that his stand is clear from his words - "by Sikh extremists" but I would not suggest that this somehow excludes "revenge." It simply does not follow that the two cannot both apply. By the way, the sources do not need to "explain" their use of terms or their conclusions to your satisfaction in order to be acceptable for use in the articles. If you think otherwise, prove it, citing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks, A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I bring your attention to what Professor Hardgrave said "but it seems clear that the assassins' action was taken in revenge.". It really cannot be any clearer than that.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't see any reason to object to calling it "revenge," but how does this somehow retract the description of these murderers as "extremists?" I'm surprised that you say "it really cannot be any clearer than that," as the passage you've brought does not at all clarify the retraction issue. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 18:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if professor Hardgrave stood infront of you and said, I made a mistake, because I cannot say they were extremist or their motivation was extremism. Indeed the trial that followed (which clearly established they were not extremist in belief or linked to extremist organisation) and the retraction by the BBC that they were extremist or some how linked to extremist belief or extremist movement would not be enough to convince you. In adding extremist YOU are deliberately or unwittingly trying to mislead and imply these people were members of extremist organisations or extremist in belief. No such case has ever been proven, therefore stop trying to rewrite history.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What is misleading about insisting that we describe these murderers as "extremists" as reliable sources do? This is anything but an attempt to "rewrite history." Anyway, I still await direct proof of the claimed "clear" retraction by Hardgrave, though this proof still has not materialized even after days of discussion. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are incapable of being reasoned with. The fact you cannot understand why we need to make clear their motivations is incredible. Professor Hardgrave has stated revenge was their motive and not extremism in your so called "reliable" source. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Professor Hardgrave has stated revenge was their motive" - true. But you go on, "and not extremism" - he didn't say that, and in fact refused to disavow it despite your request. Any assumption that the one precludes the other is a false dichotomy, not to mention an unwarranted interpretation of Hardgrave's statements. I'm fully capable of being reasoned with; you simply have failed to demonstrate your points without fallacy and violation of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed the good Professor because all my research never once showed any extremist tendencies of the assassins. So I was curious to see where this claim came from that they were extremist? It turns out that the good Professor was in error, as my e-mails have shown that. What your insertion of extremism does is try and link it too the wider extremist movement, which makes the entire article not only a POV, but totally inaccurate. This is what you wish to do? It looks like an orange, smells like an orange, contains citric acid like an orange and therefore must be an apple?

If one further analyses the assailants and their backgrounds, one finds they were from the the Mazbhi Community ( a community that kept away from the Jatt Sikh led extremist Sikh activity). There is no evidence to suggest that they visited or were indoctrinated into extremist Sikh organisation such as DDT, or AKJ. The Gurudwara's in around Delhi tend to be extremely liberal in approach, and the one the two visited were liberal. No family member or associate has been linked to any extremist group or been responsible for extremist paraphonalia to date. So where are these conclusions coming from that they are extremist? The only false dichotomy is by those who wish to label these people as extremists, with no proof. Reagrds--Sikh-history (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"So I was curious to see where this claim came from that they were extremist?" - from the article, published in an academic journal. It can be found in a good number of other reliable sources too, from what I recall.

"It turns out that the good Professor was in error, as my e-mails have shown that" - Your emails haven't shown that. They have shown Professor Hardgrave say he knew of no evidence of "group" membership, and agree that "revenge" was behind the murders. They also show Hardgrave refusing to retract "in belief." Nothing about this disavows the "extremist" description; quite the opposite, in fact.

"If one further analyses the assailants and their backgrounds, one finds ..." - This is an interesting analysis, but please remember WP:OR. RS call them "extremist," and your own analysis will not override that of RS. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The extremist comment in this article has been shown to be a fallacy. The attackers were not extremist in any shape form or association. The e-mails HAVE shown that, if you cannot see that you either cannot read or cannot understand English. The comments you have made shows you are clearly out of your depth.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If the emails HAVE shown that, why is that the claims presented by you and Roadahead do not follow from the passages cited to support them?

1. Hardgrave said he "[did] not recall reading that the two security guards had been members of an extremist group." Somehow, you and Roadahead conclude that this is a retraction of his descriptions of the terrorists as "extremist." That does not follow; there is no reason to assume that you can't be extremist unless you are a member of an "extremist group." On what authority is such an absurd assumption made? We cannot say Hardgrave retracted anything unless he does so explicitly in a reliable medium. An email is not reliable, and worse, the said retraction is not explicit in Hardgrave's statements (not to mention it doesn't appear implicitly either...).
2. Hardgrave agreed that "it seems clear that the assassins' action was taken in revenge." Somehow, you and Roadahead conclude that this means that Hardgrave's application of "extremist" to the terrorists is no longer valid. How so? Is it that extremists cannot take revenge? Please, explain yourself, because this does not appear to follow. In fact, it might even be called irrelevant, if you hadn't misrepresented my position to Hardgrave in your email "There is another editor insisting from your source that ... their motivation was extremism rather than revenge." I never said anything like "rather than revenge" because I do not make the fallacious assumption that "extremism" and "revenge" are mutually exclusive. Why did you say that I did? A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 00:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A baby turkey, I urge you to stop wasting others time in your "I like it" approach. Since you stubbornly insisted, regardless of contrary evidence, on picking that keyword "extremist" from Prof. Hardgrave's paper, other editor was courteous enough to pursue this with Prof. Hardgrave. The Prof was specifically asked, "...where you managed to find out her two security guards were “extremits, to which Prof. Hardgrave humbly replied, "Your point is well-taken, and I think revenge would be appropriate in characterizing their motives". You have been informed earlier that wikipedia is not indiscriminate collection of information. We are not adding the keywords to wikipedia used from each and every paper where there seems to be no justification of the usage, and make a word salad. Wikipedia is also not a legal court so that we may ask Prof. Hardgrave to submit an affidavit on oath to retract words. Prof. shows no support for the keyword you like, not in his paper, not in his email. Your "I didn't hear that" is not helping constructive contribution to Wikipedia. -- Roadahead ★ 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Professor Hardgrave's response does not support your position. He first agrees about revenge, but with regard to whether or not they are extremist, he says "I do not recall any evidence that the guards had previously been associated with any "extremist" groups." Notice that he said "groups?" That he specified "extremist groups" instead of plain "extremists" is alone enough to derail any attempt to construe this as a retraction, but his refusal to retract the description becomes even clearer when Sikh-history asks "was there any evidence that they were extremist in belief?" and Hardgrave responds, "Sorry, but I can't help you there." Most would likely cite murder as evidence in itself of the extremism of these terrorists, but nevertheless, you fail to have any explicit retraction in a reliable source, so Hardgrave's use of "extremist" in the academic journal should stand, as there is yet any valid reason to object to it (on Wikipedia grounds). Personal disagreement based upon original analysis is not a valid reason to remove a source.

As for the unsupported claim that this is "indiscriminate" information, let me inform you of the discriminating factor. RS felt it appropriate to mention that the murderers were "Sikh extremists" in the narrative of the assassination and the prominence of the 1984 problems in "the Punjab," which "dominated the political scene with growing terrorism." We follow RS. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 02:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just by continuously writing the same baseless points again and again babyturkey, it does not make it right. Roadaheads "I like it" applies in this instance. The non-constructive attitude of "I didn't hear that" even more so. Just stop it. The reason why the Professor didn't wish to write here himself was precisely because of this sort of argumentative attitude. --Sikh-history (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you at all open to the possibility that your responses have been inadequate? I've seen a lot of responses avoiding the actual substance of my objections, focusing on me instead (insults, AGF violations, and the like). Some responses were more like begging the question, but nothing "constructive." I'll try question format again; hopefully you will try answer format. To put my basic questions simply,

1. How can his statement about not recalling evidence of membership in "extremist groups" be taken as synonymous with a retraction of "extremists?" Why should we assume that they could not still be "extremists?"
2. How does his agreement with "revenge" indicate a disagreement with "extremist?" How does one preclude the other? Extremists cannot seek revenge? What authority agrees with such a claim?
3. Why did you misrepresent me (as the only editor to argue to keep "extremist" from this source) by saying ""There is another editor insisting from your source that ... their motivation was extremism rather than revenge."? I never forwarded "rather than revenge," so why did you say that I did?
4. If RS felt it appropriate to mention that the murderers were "Sikh extremists" in the narrative of the assassination and the prominence of the 1984 problems in "the Punjab," which "dominated the political scene with growing terrorism," how is it "indiscriminate" for us to include this in our narrative?
5. How is your claimed email exchange a reliable source? Honestly, there is no reason to consider it reliable; I've been giving you the benefit of the doubt as part of the assumption of good faith. I wish that you and Roadahead would do the same...

Surely you will be able to persuasively defend the positions you appear to have taken. I look forward to your answers, hoping to resolve these outstanding issues. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 23:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Idly, I note that if these 2 were not extremists, then ... their thought and behaviour was representative of mainstream Sikhs. I see not support for this. On the other hand, I see no need to classify them... how does it improve the article? Why is it relevenat? It would seem to me it might be relevant in the Sikh Extremism article, in pointing out that Extremists are those who do such things as murder politicians, while mainstream Sikhs condemn them, and their opponents use the behaviour of the extremsts as an excuse to victimize the general population of mainstream Sikhs.sinneed (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

References

top 10

"(described in India Today as number two in the top 10 Political disgraces in India[2])."

Why does this belong in the article at all? What does it add to the article on the assassination? The article already makes the driving event clear, introducing some top-ten list distracts from the point...2 people, enraged over the desecration of a most holy shrine, killed the individual they held responsible. Most especially, why does it belong in the lead-in? *MAYBE* in the body, though I would argue it belongs, if anywhere, in a "Political reprecussions" or some such on the Bluestar article.sinneed (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sections

Why are there no section headings? There were before. Breaking up the mass.sinneed (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding POV flag

The INC may be guilty as sin, but assuming it in the articles is No Good. Adding PoV flag.sinneed (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I axed the INC section, that should be handled in the rioting/pogrom/cime-against-humanity/massacre article. Leaving the flag up to give those who disagree a chance to restore, change, or agree. *I* think the flag is no longer needed, but others need a chance to disagree. :)sinneed (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible source

"Terrorism in Context",By Martha Crenshaw,Penn State Press, 1995,ISBN 0271010150, 9780271010151,633 pages

visible online. Gives some potentially useful citations as well.sinneed (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, this was for the Operation Blue Star article and I placed it here by accident. It may still be useful here as well.sinneed (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Delhi reference

"Delhi correspondent: A confidential agent. Economist, March 25, 1989, pp. 38 & 40." Was added to the references. This doesn't have any obvious meaning to me. Putting it here to keep it from being lost.sinneed (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

photos displacing "edit" links

I think there's a way to re-organize the page so that the "edit" links don't get displaced, but I can't figure out how to do it. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Indira Gandhi assassination → Assassination of Indira Gandhi — These should be changed for consistency. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Death#Assassination_articles. Pollinosisss (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Robert F. Kennedy assassination → Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
• Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination → Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr.
• Abraham Lincoln assassination → Assassination of Abraham Lincoln
• William McKinley assassination → Assassination of William McKinley
• Olof Palme assassination → Assassination of Olof Palme
• Park Chung-hee assassination → Assassination of Park Chung-hee
• Anna Politkovskaya assassination → Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya

• Support Makes sense, especially when one considers the long list of "Assassination of ..." articles linked to above. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why? Consistency alone is a little weak. — AjaxSmack 05:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposed wording also sounds better. -Pollinosisss (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - any potential ambiguity of the expression xx assasination is clarified by the expression assasination of xxx, and consistency is an issue for the death project SatuSuro 23:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose barring the presentation of a more compelling reason.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 06:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support - makes logical sense.--Sikh-History 12:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Details

"Satwant Singh was arrested by Gandhi's other bodyguards". That is fine, but what does "along with an accomplice trying to escape" refer to? The description of the attack only refers to the two, and implies that they stood waiting to be arrested, not that they fled. And what does "seriously wounded in the attack initiated by Beant Singh" mean? Does the attack refer to the assassination itself, if so how could Satwant have been injured, was Beant a poor shot? Or does that refer to shooting when Beant tried to escape - in which case how could Satwant have been injured as he didn't move? Finally, was Kehar Singh the man who was trying to escape, or someone else? Given the amount of coverage of this assassination, the desription should be more detailed and accurate.203.184.41.226 (talk) 01:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination of Indira Gandhi. 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/20130227011011/http://www.delhiwonders.com:80/delhi-indira-gandhi-memorial to http://www.delhiwonders.com/delhi-indira-gandhi-memorial

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)