Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:43, 3 December 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 6 months

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Delhi / Punjab / Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Punjab (India) (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was last assessed in April 2012. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sikhism This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventionsSikhismWikipedia:WikiProject SikhismTemplate:WikiProject SikhismSikhism

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 31, 2012 and October 31, 2014.

	Guild of Copy Editors
This article was copy edited by Miniapolis, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 8 August 2017.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

1984 anti Sikh riot should be termed genocide

An edit of mine was reverted in which some suggest the events of 1984 were "not a genocide". Under what pretext are we assuming this was not a genocide? By sheer Misplaced Pages standards alone the events of 1746 are termed Sikh genocide of 1746 and 1762 as Sikh genocide of 1762. Then how is 1984 not a genocide? Surely Indian government claims cannot be taken seriously, as they will deny it at all costs. Then surely the ground facts should be able to decipher if this was a genocide or not, and the facts clearly add up to a genocide having taken place. What I'm sensing here are double standards. A "genocide" only seems to happen when Muslims are the culprits. However when crazed right wing Hindu elements engage in the same behaviour it's passed off as a "riot".

Furthermore, several motions and news articles to neutral news sources have already mentioned that this indeed was a genocide. For example:

• It's Time India Accept Responsibility for Its 1984 Sikh Genocide - TIME Magazine (http://time.com/3545867/india-1984-sikh-genocide-anniversary/)
• For Sikh Canadians, Ontario's Genocide Motion Was Courageous And Unifying (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/amneet-singh-bali/1984-sikh-genocide_b_16099600.html)

I look forward to having a further discussion on this matter. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'll be inviting several commentators from Sikhs For Justice (http://www.sikhsforjustice.org) to add to this debate and have this article renamed rightfully to a genocide. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources refer to it as the Anti-Sikh riots and we go by what the majority of sources say. The term genocide is presented as an alternative name and that's about where it's going to stay. About inviting other commentators, please read WP:CANVASS, in particular the sections on stealth canvassing. --regentspark (comment) 21:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the term should either be genocide or pogrom. It was organized violence incited towards Sikhs. " The first sentences denotes it as such. The offical title should be changed to pogrom. If you wish to keep the word riot then it should swap places with pogrom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.96.38.155 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Some IPs have recently tried to change the title, I have reverted them and pointed to talk page for discussion.a year old Consensus in the above discussion states that genocide is invalid per comment by regentspark. Kindly understand that the title is based on WP:COMMONNAME policy. Anti-sikh riots is the common name and not Genocide. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I would like to further add that California and Ontario state legislatures have also ruled it genocide - Numerous governmetn organizzations in wikileaks have aknowldged that congress gvt was repsonsible. Despite enourmous evidence, there are some people who want to inflict hurt and influence by referring to these events as riots. I've posted this before but @DBigXray is a hyperactive contributer on Indian issues and exhibits a consistant anti-sikh bias which has mislead on many pages relating to the events of 1984. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosemuffin (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I would like to further add that in 2015 Dehli special assembly recognized the events as genocide. There is some room for debate about whether or not it is a pogrom or genocide - but terming the events as riots are a deliberate attempt to decieve. @Dbigxray I have caught him before and he is consistently involved in deceptive anti-sikh editing. I'm not sure if it is deliberate or if it is because he trusts and parrots Indian news media. It's important to understand India has intolerably low levels of Freedom of Press (138th ranking) so it's understandable that many of the prominant editors from India may simply not know they are being deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosemuffin (talk • contribs) 12:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a little less ad hominem and more facts from you, such as how you know that a State and a Province have the power to rule on something that took place in India? Britmax (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect sir, I am not engaging in ad-hominem I am merely informing the forum of DBigXray, a systemically biased user who should recuse himself from Sikh wiki's. Now In reference to your question, I'm sorry but ANYBODY can see how silly it is. The ONLY people who can rule on THIS matter are FOREIGN bodies such as states (connecticut, california), provinces (Ontario), and Intelligence agencies (CIA - via Wikileaks). WHY? BECAUSE INDIA IS THE ACCUSED in this MATTER. How can you not see that? How can you ask such a question? You think India can rule on it's own behavior? Can a murderur rule over his own murder trial? SECOND, India has a freedom of the press ranking at 138th!!! 138 is atrocioius. Unforgiveable for a democracy. Where is the outrage from Hindus my friend? I'm tired of Pro-India, Hindu bias on these Wikis. SIKHS feel this every single day as their voices are shut out of the media - while Hindus sit there thinking they're country is all good. In terms of freedom of speech, my friend, India is worse than Somalia for Sikhs. And pro-India Hindus have proven time and time again that they CANNOT be trusted to comment on political divisive matters regarding India on Misplaced Pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosemuffin (talk • contribs) 09:07, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead Section

If you have any further comments on improving the lead section. lets discuss it here. Edit summaries do not count as discussion. cheers. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• @DBigXray: Any reason for changing the hatnote? Gotitbro (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

yes, to conform it with the existing titles of these articles. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Need suggestion for perpetrators field in the infobox

Hi All, The infobox said

• Perpetrators = Congress Party members

And I changed it to

• Perpetrators = Congress Party members (alleged)

Although there are several reports alleging members of the Congress party as perpetrators, this isn't confirmed. Should the article infobox mention this as alleged or just completely remove the perps parameter, suggestions/opinions invited. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I have removed it. There is nothing for the infobox to summarise until it is sourced. Reliably. Britmax (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Britmax, Thanks a lot for the kind reply and the action. Agree with your opinion. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with this removal. I did find some sources and will re-add the content at a later stage. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You are right. Restored content with reliable sources. Orientls (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Orientls i had to partially revert your edit to remove poor sources, this needs to be discussed first and requires consensus to be added. See WP:BLPCRIME and WP:PERPETRATOR for relevant policies and then share your opinion. several reports also implicate RSS in these riots but we can't include all that in infobox.(see below sources)

• Amarinder names BJP, RSS leaders involved in 1984 riots
• ‘RSS was silent during the 1984 riots. At places, it was implicated in the violence’
• RSS Role in 1984 Sikh Massacre: 31 Years After the Carnage, Perpetrators Still Free--DBigXrayᗙ 06:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

That was not a "partial revert" but a blanket revert of a long standing content for which I provided quality reliable sources. There was no need of sources in first place per WP:CITELEAD. Your use of conspiracy theory blog links to oppose statements of reliable sources just shows that you don't understand what constitutes a WP:RS or any of the guidelines you are linking. Have a careful reading of each of them and don't revert per WP:BRD. Orientls (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Orientis, I have removed the content as a Blatant violation of WP:BLPCRIME, refrain from re-adding this before a consensus on the talk page. consider this a final warning for that as BLP violations are enforced rather strictly--DBigXrayᗙ 07:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: It is clear that first you are attempting to remove mention of congress. First you asked for reliable sources and once they were provided you begin to grossly misrepresent WP:BLPCRIME when we are not even alleging a specific individual of a crime. Now self-revert yourself before any other edit you make here or I will have to take you to WP:ANI for this disruption. Don't forget you recently came off from one.  Orientls (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is clear And I have given my reasons for that. Your edits are against consensus, use poor sources and are BLP violations. You are welcome to participate and share your opinion to generate consensus and you are also welcome to approach any dramaboards to report me and face WP:BOOMERANG. I am above these intimidation tactics and I am not going to self-revert to restore BLP violations. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray and Orientls: Please, can both of you calm down and not edit war or run to WP:ANI (in case of Orientls) for something which can be calmly discussed here. @DBigXray: you requested a WP:RS when the mention of Congress was removed and Orientls seems to have provided two which seem WP:RS to me. If you disagree or believe that there is more to it than that can be discussed here. Now, you have provided some sources which seem to be interviews of individuals from sources which are known to have a political bias (and we did have a discussion on this sometime back). Still, I am happy to discuss more on this here. I also fail to see how this falls under WP:BLPCRIME but maybe I am not seeing this clearly and you can illustrate your point better. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Although the source says the the perpetrators were organised by Congress (I), it cannot be assumed that all the atrocities were committed by them as opposed to people with other reasons for hating Sikhs. Therefore this is too wide a matter to be dealt with in a box soundbite and should be handled in the text. Britmax (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Adamgerber80, I am calm, it seems you have not read the comments above properly, please read the comments above and find out who tried intimidation tactics to bully and threaten to make his way out of content dispute ? Then find out who ran and opened a frivolous ANI thread (that is still open) in an attempt to weaponize ANI? after knowing who did this, kindly give credits to whom it is due, instead of using False equivalence and showering your praises on "both".

Now talking about the content, WP:BLPCRIME states that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. The same can be extended to organization, Congress in this case. Both sources only accuses Congress. None of the sources so far claim Congress as an organisation was convicted into organising this riot. Hence this is clearly against the policies to introduce this accusations into infobox trying to put defamatory sentences so as to infer that conviction on Congress was handed in a court of law while all that exists is accusations. Infobox is not the place for this.

I have given the links that support these points that even RSS-BJP were accused and cases filed against them in a court of law, should we then also add BJP in infobox ? In my opinion, I support the action taken by Britmax to entirely remove the accusation from the infobox.

14 FIRs were registered “against 49 BJP-RSS leaders for their role in anti-Sikh riots of 1984”.

--DBigXrayᗙ 07:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox edits are fine where they are since they are backed with solid reliable sources. Others are correct that your rebuttal is not supported by solid sources and that nothing in infobox concerns BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This source that Orientis added. A quote from it notes that

few arrested were quickly released on the behest of Congress leaders...Official inquiry known as the Mishra Commission gave a blanket exoneration to Congress (I) leaders... Congress Party leaders have repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the rioting.

So if anything this source only confirms my point that The infobox should not mention Congress as the perpetrators. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Read the whole chapter. It says "the blatantly planned and well directed nature of the violence was impossible to conceal". D4iNa4 (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• That parameter is inappropriate here, as is the "motive" parameter. Both those things are too complex for an infobox. That Congress members played a role is not really in dispute, but adding "Congress members" as perpetrators in the infobox (without any others) is an implication that no one else was involved, which is nonsensical (and is certainly not supported by the sources in question). The "Infobox civilian attack" is a fairly general infobox, covering a number of types of attacks. Not all parameters are applicable everywhere: riots are, almost by definition, incidents without a clearly defined body of perpetrators. Both motive and the identity of the perpetrators should be discussed in the text, where it can be presented in a nuanced manner. Vanamonde (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Source describes in the chapter that how Congress played the major role. Treatment of congress as prepetrators is also described by other reliable sources and they don't dispute congress involvement. So far the motive is confirmed, and reliable sources state Congress were perpetrator. If you have any other reliable sources for confirming any other perpetrator of these riots then we can add them as well, but there is no reason to remove "Congress members", though it can be re-worded. Otherwise RfC would be the only option if it needs to be removed since it is standing for long and sources confirm the information. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Those sources confirm involvement by members of the Congress, which is not under dispute. Adding "Congress members" as the only perpetrators is explicitly saying that every single person who committed an act of violence in these riots was a member of the Congress. That is nonsense, and none of the sources you have provided say that. I don't have to provide sources for anything. You wish to claim that all perpetrators were Congress members; you need to provide sources supporting that, per WP:BURDEN. The role of the Congress should be discussed in the body, where this nuance may be examined. Vanamonde (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It meets the definition provided at Template:Infobox civilian attack: "perpetrators – The group that brings about or carries out a harmful, illegal, or immoral act (use perpetrator in case of a single group)." If you have issues with "prepetrators" then we can just use "prepetrator". I wonder if any source will say that "that all perpetrators were Congress members". If there are any other prepetrators mentioned in reliable sources then you are free to add them. D4iNa4 (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a misreading of the documentation. That makes sense for a well-defined group (or groups). It does not apply here, where the conflict was diffuse both in time and space, including hundreds (probably thousands) of individuals incidents. Also, the very fact that you are interested in adding the INC as a perpetrator but expect others to do the digging suggests that you are basing your edits on the notion that the INC was the only perpetrator; again, not something based on the sources. Vanamonde (talk) 19:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It is still sensible and the fact remains that it is not treating Congress as less or more, according to the sources. You can mention multiple reliable sources citing anyone other than Congress. If these sources had named any other prepetrator then we would be already aware of them. So far they have named nobody except Congress. We are doing same for years. If reliable sources make no mention of any other perpetrator then we should avoid it as well. It would make no sense to remove the parameter only because you assume that conflict included more groups. Even that would need to be supported by source otherwise that is just WP:OR. D4iNa4 (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not how that works. If you want to add an exceptional claim to the article, you need to demonstrate that it is supported by reliable sources. You haven't done so. INC involvement in the pogrom is discussed at length in the body, as it should be; don't try to shoehorn it into a place where it doesn't belong. Vanamonde (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• D4iNa4 it seems that you are either unable to understand Vanamonde's central point or you are showing deliberate WP:IDHT. There are multiple issues about adding Congress Party as a perpetrator in the infobox.

perpetrators field is for the "The group" which has to be undisputed and well defined. Which is not the case here. Facts of the matter are some of the congress members stand accused for their involvement. But no source says that they are the only perpetrators here. The incident was spread over number of days and multiple locations, violent mobs including the members of the general public, Congress, BJP-RSS members, smaller fringe group members etc were reported by media as involved. By mentioning "Congress party members" you are claiming a conviction and squarely fixing the entire responsibility. This is not the job of Misplaced Pages editors to fix the blame on a person or a group. If there are indeed conviction that fixes the blame squarely on Congress Party as perpetrator and reliable sources report that only then can we use mention this in the infobox. As of now the reliable sources only claim involvement which needs to be discussed in the article body. So far no individual congress leader has been convicted and here you are trying to add "Congress Party" in the infobox. Only the involvement has been reported and that should be discussed in the article body and not the infobox.

The Infobox's purpose is to summarise the article content and report the undisputed facts and not mislead the reader into thinking something that is not even supported by facts. Hence these controversial content must be removed from the article infobox. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't comment on editors. You are still not giving up your false notion that the parameter concerns BLP. To answer, "But no source says that they are the only perpetrators here", this can be better answered if you have found any other perpetrators being supported by WP:RS (not interviews or unreliable blogs). Above sources including HRW source says "1984 anti-Sikh violence was led and often perpetrated by activists and sympathizers of the then-ruling party, the Indian National Congress, some of whom later became members of parliament or occupied posts in government. The police simply stood by, and were often complicit in the attacks. Instead of holding those responsible for the violence to account, many police officials and Congress party leaders involved have been promoted over the last 30 years." We can stick to this since this has left no doubt regarding how many perpetrators there were.

As a side note, I have reverted an overlooked edit made by an IP from October, that concerned removal of a long standing content. Orientls (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

A lot many Human rights organisation have implicated BJP members, some of them e.g. Kodnani are even convicted in 2002 Gujarat riots by courts of law. Going by your logic we should also add a Perpetrator parameter as "BJP party members" over there. shouldn't we ? --DBigXrayᗙ 16:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

If you cannot find a source that says that they are the only perpetrators, then the issue is too nuanced for the infobox, and should be laid out in such detail as is reliably sourced in the text. The simplicity of infoboxes means that they have their limits. Britmax (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I don't know why I have to keep repeating this, but the perpetrators field is inappropriate here and in similar cases. Even the source you just cited, Orientls, says often perpetrated. As in, its explicitly saying there were others. Vanamonde (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

So you are not disputing the attribution to "perpetrator" on factual basis? 2002 riots has a different infobox than this one. But I got your point. Since police investigations and corruption occur in every riot, I guess this will only lead to addition of governments as perpetrators everywhere else. How about we add '"pogroms" to "attack type" parameter, and remove Congress from parameter? Orientls (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use Indian English
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Mid-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Death articles
• Mid-importance Death articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Unknown-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• C-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• C-Class Delhi articles
• High-importance Delhi articles
• C-Class Delhi articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Delhi articles
• C-Class Punjab (India) articles
• High-importance Punjab (India) articles
• C-Class Punjab (India) articles of High-importance
• WikiProject Punjab (India) articles
• C-Class Indian politics articles
• Mid-importance Indian politics articles
• C-Class Indian politics articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles
• C-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• C-Class Sikhism articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2012)
• Selected anniversaries (October 2014)
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors