Talk:Human rights abuses in Punjab, India

Reliable sources and NPOV

This article needs reliable, neutral, third-party sources. See WP:RS. Ensaaf is neither neutral, reliable (by WP policies), notable, or third-party. Human Rights Watch arguably is notable and third-party, and might be used as a source for charges, but the charges can't be presented as fact, which the original version of this article did (and which continues in some parts of the current version). Further, the article must be written with a neutral tone. See WP:NPOV. Priyanath ^talk 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ensaaf is definitely a reliable source. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, not according to Wikipedia policy on Reliable Sources, which is what we're talking about here. See WP:RS. Priyanath ^talk 02:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support Priyanath's interpretation of Ensaaf as failing wp:RS. This is also under discussion at Talk:Kanwar Pal Singh Gill. I do think it can be used *wisely* in footnotes.- sinneed (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Guys, ENSAAF is a very notable and reputable organization, having very high profile board of advisors, such as..Brad Adams, director of Human Rights Watch's Asia division, Sandra Coliver of Justice Initiatives, Inc., Carla Ferstman of Redress (charitable organisation), Paul Williams, executive director of Public International Law & Policy Group, Romesh Silva of Human Rights Data Analysis Group etc and it has another five high profile members in its board of directors. It has worked alongwith Human Rights Watch on several projects and both organizations have jointely released several publications. It definitely passes wp:rs--166.129.37.22 (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Oddly, the press doesn't seem to think so... it seems to be silent. I note that the same was true of SATP until an editor cared enough to find the notability. HRW is the only point I see giving it any note at all, or I would have been chopping it out to the talk page. Wikilinks are always interesting but they have nothing whatever to do with notability... wikipedia is not at all a wp:RS. - sinneed (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

And... thank you for making this your very 1st wikipedia post.- sinneed (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

NO! Sinneed, You might be wrong. There are 23,600 Google hits for this HRO. It appears that someone need to study them further. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC).

• There are over 5000 hits for Sinneed and sinneed remains non-notable. Humorous though.- sinneed (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks dear editor for pointing towards these references, I tried checking them and picked few important ones from the first few search page results. It is definitely a notable organization and several countries/world level organizations relied on Ensaaf to issue their reports, so it is definitely a RS:

• US government relied on Ensaaf reports while issuing its "2006 and 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices", see: US Dept. of State, 2006 Country Report on Human Rights and US Dept. of State, 2006 Country Report on Human Rights
• Human Rights watch and Ensaaf jointly issued news reports on HRW website.
• United Nations Refugee Agency and Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada published their reports while relying on Ensaaf references/reports. 'Ensaaf'name appeared 25 times in this single report.
• The United Nations Refugee Agency's other 37 other publications where it relied on Ensaaf while issuing these reports.
• United Kingdom Border Agency relied on Ensaaf to release its official report.
• National Center for Charitable Statistics (United States) - details of Ensaaf
• [1] "Ensaaf, The Redress Trust (REDRESS), and the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice]'s joint report in United Nations Working Group.
• United Nations - Universal Periodic Review - Ensaaf reports
• Immigration and refugee Board of Canada used/relied on Ensaaf reports in one of its official release:
• Center for Human Rights and Global Justice talking about ensaaf.
• United Kingdom parliament's publication documenting Ensaaf and its praise by 'Human Rights Watch'.
• Physicians for Human Rights talking about Ensaaf's contributions. --209.183.55.84 (talk) 07:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

* United Kingdom Border Agency, interestingly, used the same 2 references at Ensaaf that I did, so at least I am in good company there. :) I see the linkage to Human Rights Watch, which does give some credibility, as I noted already. "Oddly, the press doesn't seem to think so... it seems to be silent." - remains true. Any hits? You haven't listed any. Again, I see this source as useful, but, like SATP, limited.- sinneed (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of view made clear on front page of the web site

The focus of Ensaaf is not human rights in Punjab, according to its front page, it is "A mission to end impunity". Its banner also says "End Impunity. Achieve Justice." and continues "Ensaaf is a nonprofit organization working to end impunity and achieve justice for mass state crimes in India, with a focus on Punjab."

Contrast to Amnesty International: "Amnesty International | Working to Protect Human Rights"
and to
Human Rights Watch "Human Rights Watch | Defending Human Rights Worldwide".

Clearly Ensaaf has a mission to end impunity. Therefore it has a strong (mission == strong) point of view that impunity is bad. Further it has a strong point of view that India committed "mass state crimes".

I am sure this is an EXCELLENT organization, and pursuing justice is for me a highly respectable thing to do. But having already decided the state is guilty, and that impunity must be ended so that there can be "justice"... stronlgy PoV. This does not make them useless as a source. It simply means we must be wise.- sinneed (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I will read it further, but

Govt forces had enflicted mass scale punishments to ordinary civilians at such a scale- you are reading mass murders, mass cremations and so on .... that we really needed some dedicated org to save the innocent humans out there. Sikhs were murdered/raped in such a way that even their documented population has been decreased (per Indian stats) for the first time in Indian history. If required, I can provide references later.

but I believe that since United Nations, United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Human Rights watch and several other NPOV countries/organizations are using it as a reliable source while issuing their extremely important statements/reports then we shouldn't have any problem with it. It proves that it is definitely as reliable source.

Further their work was commended by a HRO Human Rights Watch, and UK government has noted it. It has successfully contested human rights crimes in courts of law and it has never favoured Khalistan. It shows that they have neutral theme.

Somehow, their website look more nice on Windows Vista than on windows XP etc. I do not know the reason. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If several countires and even United Nations are relying on it then there shouldn't be any issue about its reliability. It is definitely a RS.--135.214.42.68 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Logic fallacy is as follows
  fact:x uses y
  fallacious conclusion: x trusts y
  
  In wikipedia, we use wikipedia articles all the time... we wikilink them as a matter of course. But we can't use them as sources for content... wikipedia is not a wp:reliable source. Giving credit is not the same as relying on. Nor is quoting someone the same as trusting them. I quote many many sources I would not trust to tell me the sky is blue today. I just use them wisely. I am not sure I can say the same for the millions of members of our various governments.
  Again, *I* commend their work. It is great, I support them, I wish them well. And they are not a generally reliable source, but one that must be used wisely. It doesn't matter that their mission is one I agree with, respect and support. It matters that it is there.- sinneed (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Section on Terrorism/militants human rights violations

Human rights were violated by both Khalistani terrorists AND security forces. So I have added a section on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.51.223.161 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Dropped source...

published by "A group of dedicated Sikhs to create awareness about Sikh issues in Canada and abroad. Not even an organization named.- sinneed (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Should this not be part of HR in India article?

Human rights in India

Would a merge be a good idea?- sinneed (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well! an article on mass cremations was recently deleted under the logic that said information should be preserved in this article. Both sides, police/indian security forces and militants violated the human rights in Punjab at a very large scale. So I beileve that this article should stay as a separate article. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What was the article name? If much work had been done on it, the content should have been merged here. Was there any substantial content? If so I could ask an admin to bring it back in my user space. I hate folks losing their work.--- sinneed (talk) 21:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the link to its AfD, I noticed this AfD when the decision was already made by admins.--99.51.223.161 (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I was the first to suggest merging this with Human rights in India, I guess we should keep this. The conditions in Punjab and J&K in the 80s and 90s do merit distinct articles on Human rights for the two.The one-sidedness of this article (somheow it seems only government agencies are capable of HR violations, and millitants and terrorists are not :-)) needs to be tackled. I guess Priyanath did merge content from "Mass cremations in India" to this article. --Deepak D'Souza 10:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Think article is biased

i have read many RELIABLE sources, and I think this article is biased against the khalistan movement Chocokake5057 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights abuses in Punjab, India. 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/20120217001428/http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node%2F77531&id=7017302 to http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node%2F77531&id=7017302

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: 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) 14:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)