Talk:Reginald Dyer

message: I believe the rank in the British Army is simply "brigadier," not "brigadier-general."
You are correct that today the British Army has the rank "Brigadier".  However back in 1919 the British army had the rank "Brigadier General" which is still used by the US Army for this rank.  See this extract from Wikipedia - British Army Officer Insignia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_officer_rank_insignia:
Brigadier-Generals wore a crossed sword and baton symbol on its own. In 1922 the rank was replaced with Colonel-Commandant, a title that reflected the role more accurately, but which many considered to be inappropriate in a British context. From 1928 the latter was replaced with the rank of Brigadier with the rank insignia used to this day. --Rameses 03:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brigadier-General? 

message: It is understandable that people are thoroughly angry with the actions of Reginald Dyer. He did, after all, order the massacre of unarmed civilians. However, the recent history of this article has involved numerous violations of WP:NPOV. In order for Wikipedia to work, it must be fair and neutral in dealing with all subjects, including those who committed atrocities. This doesn't mean that the article has to in any way deny what Dyer did. (The Adolf Hitler article spends a long time talking about the Holocaust.) However, the article cannot take positions on his actions. It can't say that his actions were "abominable" (even though they were, in my opinion) nor can it call him a "butcher," as that is a loaded word. Hence, I've nominated this article to be checked for its POV. --Hnsampat 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's good to see Category:Terrorists gone for good at least, but I do not think that Category:Mass_Murderers is appropriate either. If we go that way, we'll have to put pretty much every historical leader as well as a lot of other notable people into that category. So far we've already got Christopher Columbus there, who next, Alexander the Great? Genghis Khan? George W. Bush? -- int19h 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also ask to not remove the POV-Check tag please. It is there for a reason, and for as long as the dispute is not resolved, it should remain in place. It is not meant to be removed by a single editor just because he thinks the issues raised are not valid. Furthermore, it is not even stating that the article is non-NPOV, it is merely an invitation for all WP editors to check the neutrality of the article. Why is that a problem? -- int19h 06:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV check 

message: There's a difference between something being factual and being neutral. I'm not at all disputing the facts presented in this article. (Others may dispute them, but I don't want to get into any debate about the facts themselves.) However, neutrality is about the WAY in which those facts are presented. 
Let me give you an example.
Facts:
* Dyer ordered his troops to fire on the crowd in Jallianwala Bagh.
* The crowd was unarmed and non-violent.
* Women and children were present in the crowd.
* Dyer offered no warning and no opportunity to escape.
Now, here's a sentence that, while based on the facts, is also far from being neutral (note: the sentences in this article are not this explicitly NPOV, but I'm trying to prove a point): "The bloodthirsty butcher General Dyer abominably ordered his troops to fire on the peaceful, innocent crowd. He had trapped them in the garden by blocking the entrances and then, without warning, ordered the slaughter of the crowd, including the heinous murder of little children."
Here's a more neutral version of the same facts: "All exits to the garden were blocked, either because the gates were locked or because Dyer's troops had blocked them. After that, Dyer ordered his troops to fire into the crowd, which included women and children. The members of the crowd were unarmed and had gathered for a peaceful protest. Even as the crowd attempted to disperse, Dyer ordered his troops to keep firing."
You see my point? The first sentence injects the author's point of view into the description of the facts (i.e. the author feels that the actions were "abominable" etc.) The second, more neutral version just states the facts as they are, without including any qualifiers. That's what neutrality is all about.
Now, on a side note, why can't we include Dyer in the categories of "Mass murderers" and "Terrorists"? Because the rules for those categories say that we can't. If you don't like those rules, you can discuss it on the talk pages for those categories and try to get the rules changed. However, right now, the rules say we can't do this. Just because you disagree with the rules doesn't mean you can break them. --Hnsampat 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What more, "State terrorism" category is a subcat of "Terrorism". So the guy should go into one or the other, but not both. Since what this article describes is clearly state terrorism, that's where he should be. "Political repression" is also fitting. But the rest should go, as per their descriptions. -- int19h 07:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual versus neutral 

message: As far as I know, Dyer received a hero's welcome upon his return to England. I personally think that that is despicable, but if that did indeed happen, then it is incorrect to say that his actions were "universally condemned." As a matter of fact, the article states that Michael O'Dwyer endorsed Dyer's actions. And if O'Dwyer did so, wouldn't there be others in the British government who endorsed and/or failed to condemn the massacre? --Hnsampat 07:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Universally condemned" 

message: First of all, it's categorically against Wikipedia policy to assume that everything in this article is verified. (Please see Wikipedia: Verifiability.) The policy is that everything is questionable until it has been verified, not the other way around. Verifying the information is also the responsibility of the person who adds the information, not of the person who questions it. (In other words, I don't have to prove that something is true.)
Still, since somebody asked, I'll list some of the main points that I feel are not verified (this list is not comprehensive; these are just some of the big ones):
* Dyer's testimony claiming that he offered no warning needs to be citied
* The sentence about Dyer showing no remorse needs to be cited. (Also, it needs to be made NPOV)
* What is the "Home Political"? I did a Google search on it and I can't find it anywhere. What kind of source is it? Is it reputable?
* The "threatening language" stuff needs to be verified.
* I need a source on Dyer receiving 18,000 pounds sterling upon his return to England.
* Michael O'Dwyer's role in the massacre needs to be verified with independent sources.
When finding sources for this, they need to be UNBIASED and CREDIBLE.
Finally, please stop repeatedly removing the POV and fact-check tags. By having those tags there, we're not saying that this article is biased or that it isn't accurate. We're saying that somebody disputes the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article. Can't we at least agree that some people say this article is neutral and that others say it is not? Can't we at least agree that there is a disagreement or a dispute about whether this article is neutral or not? Just because one person thinks the article is neutral or biased doesn't make it neutral or biased. --Hnsampat 15:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified information 

message: Of course they were not. But it is facts we need in Wikipedia, not judgements. "1000 people killed" is an objective fact, "horrible barbarous atrocity" is a subjective judgement. Provide the former, and let the people make the latter for themselves. -- int19h 06:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: These Guys were not Saints: Drama at  Jallianwala

message: The Morning Post (England), a conservative, pro-Imperialistic News Paper supported Dyer’s action on a flimsy ground deeming it necessary to  “PROTECT THE HONOUR OF EUROPEAN WOMEN” (Morning Post, cited in Derek Sayer, British Reaction of Amritsar Massacre, 1919-20, Reprint in Jallianwala Bagh Commemoration Volume, Patiala, 1997,  p 45). An announcement for the Dyer Fund was made in the newspaper and a large sum was raised for him (Morning Post, cited in by Derek Sayer in  British Reaction of Amritsar Massacre, 1919-20, Reprint in Jallianwala Bagh Commemoration Volume, Patiala, 1997,  p 45).  A Thirteen Women Committee  was constituted to present  “the Savior of the Punjab with sword of honour and a purse”. Morning Post curiously blamed Mr Montegu, not Dyer for the  cold-blooded massacre and for his court trial. Mr Montegu, on the otherhand, in his long  letter to the Viceroy, went to the very heart of the matter, passing blame squarely on Michael O’Dwyer and frankly admitting  “I feel that O’Dwyer represents a regime that is doomed”. 
It is very interesting to note that, Michael O’Dwyer, who had used General Dyer for his plan and had himself masterminded Jallianwalla Bagh Drama, later ditched General Dyer during latter’s bad times.
:The Morning Post was not just some random British newspaper. According to Wikipedia's article on the Daily Telegraph (with which it merged in 1937) it appealed particularly to retired military officers: which is currently Private Eye magazine's caricature of its successor. More importantly, in 1920 it serialised the Protocols of the Elders of Sion over several issues, and then published the articles in book form: so it was well to the right of the mainstream. NRPanikker (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Dyer’s few supporters at Home

message: Reports went afloat that Michael O’Dwyer was responsible for General Dyer’s downfall (The Life of General Dyer, London, p 117, Colving).  General Dyer could not enjoy a comfortable sleep even for a day after the Massacre of Jallianwala Bagh (Ibid, Colving).  After the barbaric incidence, his health rapidly failed and in 1921 he was stricken with paralysis and never recovered.  He died at Long Ashton on July 23, 1927 of arterio-sclerosis and cerebral haemorhage,  reportedly laden with guilt of Amritsar Massacre on his conscience.  In the final moments of his life, he murmured:  “but I don’t want to get better. Some  say I did right while others say I did  wrong. I only want to die and know of my maker whether I did right or wrong”  (Alfred Draper, The Massacre that Ended the Raj, p 255; Dictionary of National Bibliography, op cit, 281, 651).
Sze cavalry01 22:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: After-effects of Massacre on General Dyer

message: Well, I must say that I am impressed with how swiftly you were able to provide all these sources. You seem well-versed in the events surrounding the massacre and I think that you could potentially expand this article even further using this information.
I just ask that that you act in the spirit of cooperation and that you adhere to WP:NPOV when adding information. Like I said before, Wikipedia has to be neutral in tone (because it's an encyclopedia, after all), even when talking about people who committed atrocities. Remember that for every source that says that Dyer was a butcher, there's another that will defend him. Because of the rules of neutrality on Wikipedia, it is required that both sides be shown. (I personally think that Dyer was cruel and cold-blooded, but I am having this discussion with you because Wikipedia policy requires that all articles have a neutral point of view.)
Please also remember that Wikipedia is based on consensus effort and compromise, not unilateral action. Therefore, please work with other editors and please don't be uncivil if they disagree with you, no matter how strong your opinions are. --Hnsampat 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm impressed 

message: One of the most critic of Caxton Hall Episod,  Mr  BrianSmithson  has himself suggested Mass murderers category for General Dyer and Michael O’Dwyer. See below the text from BrianSmithson himself.
The problem is twofold: First, any Category:Butchers would be ambiguous, as the primary meaning of "butcher" is someone who prepares animal meat to be eaten. Secondly, we already have Category:Mass murderers, which serves the purposes you are talking about, in my opinion. — BrianSmithson 15:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:  Mass Murdereres

message: I added cleanup tag because "Amritsar Massacre" and "Massacre of Jallianwala Bagh" are the same incident, but in some places sequential sentences alternate between terms. In the "Reaction to Amritsar massacre" section can be found this quote. 'Mr C. F. Andrews termed the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre as "Cold-Blooded Massacre and Inhumane."' This could be confusing to people unfamiliar with the event (such as myself, initially). I didn't make the corrections myself because I don't know which is the preferred designation, so I respectfully leave the matter to my betters. Cheers. LordNaughty 09:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Tag 

message: :recall of Michael O’Dwyer and Mr Chemsford
Who is Mr Chemsford? Does this mean Lord Chelmsford the viceroy? The Wednesday Island 15:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Chemsford 

message: This is a dispute about what categories are applicable to the article on Reginald Dyer. In particular, the appropriateness of :Category:Terrorists and :Category:Mass murderers is disputed. 14:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: categories applicable to article on [[Reginald Dyer]] 

message: The editor who keeps inserting the phrase has asked in the revert description:
Added back the impact, this is a quote from the book "the Butcher of Amritsat", please let me know why this is removed
I am not the one who keeps deleting it, but I am inclined to agree with him. The reasons are twofold. First of all, if it is a quote, it must be properly referenced. Also, the fact that it appears in the book does not make it factual, merely an opinion of the author of that book - meaning that it can only be included in the article if it is notable (i.e. the book is widely regarded as an important work on the topic, or there are other notable sources which support the statement), and even then clearly marked as an opinion. Though, to be honest, given the wording of the phrase (e.g. "leaving with honour and affection"), I don't think that it has any encyclopaedic value either way. -- int19h 13:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... ensured that it was impossible for the British to leave India with honour" 

message: Hi, regarding the four edits made by AliMaghrebi on December 7th:
# (cur) (last)  15:04, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (23,475 bytes) (→Crawling Order) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:58, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (22,917 bytes) (→Return to England) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:57, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (22,916 bytes) (→Return to England) (undo)
# (cur) (last) 14:53, 7 December 2007 AliMaghrebi (Talk | contribs) (22,890 bytes) (→Return to England) (undo)
I'd like to see some viable references for the unsourced conclusions that are not neutral at all. As well, they are off topic, since: "the illegitimate children of 'white' men and the drunken attacks [of the soldiers] on the local women" has no direct relation to the crawling order, but is unproven conjecture. Similarly, for the Return to England section, the last paragraph speaks in general terms and out of scope of the article. This article is not primarily concerned with the motivations of the classes, but rather the life history of General Dyer. Any political implications of the event and the supporters of the General's actions seem more appropriate in the separate article on the massacre.
If nobody has any objections I will undo those changes. If anybody is interested, we can work to do a rewriting of the added section to see if we can fit any of it in this article or in another relevant article.
Thanks.
Principia.draco (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits to Return to England and Crawling Order 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dyre.jpg

message: Two sentences in the article reference Ian Covin's biography of Dyer, yet I have the Colvin biography and the claims that O'Dwyer was responsible for Dyer's downfall and that he could not sleep a day after Amritsar do not appear on the page mentioned. I suspect the page number was plucked out of thin air. And there are vague "references" like "Government of India, External affairs Department, File No 1940, Newspapers (Secret)" and "Home Political, Sept 1920, No 23, National Archive of India, New Delhi", sources which can hardly be verified.--Johnbull (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I think that the present image is probably inappropriate. The fact that General Dyer WAS a blood-thirsty butcher does not mean that the image should say so. The horror of men like Dyer is that they were NOT obviously slavering beasts. Can we not find a regimental portrait or other non-POV image. Compared the images posted of various war criminals from WWII. I also feel that the image is inappropriate becasue it promotes the books from which the image is taken. Thanks: V. Joe (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since there are no objections, I am going to remove the image. Cheers 
V. Joe (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image concern

message: The article is inconsistent as his rank/title. It variously calls him "Brigadier General", "Brigadier", and "General". I don't think Brigadier was a British Army rank during his active service? It is also mentioned that he retired with the rank of Colonel (it is stated that his appointment to Brigadier General was temporary). References to his life after retirement should use Colonel? 122.107.58.27 (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Military Rank

message: For any Indians editing this article, please, keep it neutral!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastedgrunt36 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This will fall on deaf ears, alas. Their aim is not to have a balanced, neutral article on Dyer but to have a completely anti-Dyer page, even lying if necessary. There is the same problem on Lord Macaulay's page where even though a quote attributed to him has shown to be conclusively false, Indian editors continually try and re-add it to the article.--Britannicus (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: Barring points like second one, why is the reaction section here in this article and not in the article about the incident to which it was a reaction? The reaction was not about the person as much as it was about the incident.59.180.76.10 (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction in India and Britain (problem with logic and flow of article) 

message: Why is there no mention in this article of Dyer's court-martial and dismissal? http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10D14FE3C5E10728DDDAB0A94D0405B808EF1D3 Yaush (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to view that source, but my computer doesn't do it. Under WP:Bold... add it yourself. Please be NPOV in tone! V. Joe (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is to a New York Times editorial asking if Dyer was railroaded. There are very few details of the court-martial there, so it's not a particularly good source. I'm not versed in the literature on the Raj or this particular ugly event, but I knew he was court-martialed, and was surprised there was no mention of it here.Yaush (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As you like it, but even noting and citing that he had a court-martial would be an improvement... the NYT is certainly a reliable source V. Joe (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The debate in the House of Commons on 8th July 1920 (see link on main page) makes it clear that there was no court martial. He was a witness at the Hunter Commission's inquiry and after being censured in their majority and minority reports was asked to submit a written statement to the Army Council in London, which decided to relieve him of his military appointment: a purely administrative procedure, against which there was no appeal. Winston Churchill said that this was a fate which dozens of generals had undergone during the recent war. NRPanikker (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Court-martial  

message: Doesnt appear to be relevant to an article on Dyer it should really be at Jallianwala Bagh massacre. MilborneOne (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is relevant as the content is about Dyer. As a reader I found that information very useful. So I would not want to remove it. Venkat TL (talk) 11:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of Michael O'Dwyer

message: 'In the British Army Museum in London, a testimonial to Dyer by the British Monarch is the first exhibit along the wall of the staircase as one ascends to the first floor devoted to the Indian Army.'
A short excerpt from this testimonial might be enlightening. Valetude (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal testimony 

message: @Dormskirk I removed Sir as it is a honorific in this article, which is not about Dwyer. I am not sure why you have re-added it back. Please explain. Please refer to MOS:SIR before responding.  Venkat TL (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:SIR says "The honorific titles Sir, Dame, Lord and Lady are included in the initial reference and infobox heading for the subject of a biographical article, but are optional after that". But this article is about Reginald Dyer not  Sir Michael O'Dwyer. i.e. Sir Michael O'Dwyer is not the subject of the biographical article. As the two have very similar names it is best to distinguish between the subject of the article (Dyer) and the Lieutenant-Governor of Punjab (Sir Michael O'Dwyer). There has been considerable confusion between the two in this article in the past. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This not a policy based argument to keep the honorific. The only two places Sir is being added is before his full name "Michael O'Dwyer". English is not my first language and I have no problem in seeing the difference between "Michael O'Dwyer" and "Reginald Dyer" . Following MOS:SIR I expect you to restore my changes. Or let me know how you would like to proceed with the Dispute resolution on Wikipedia . Venkat TL (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have self-reverted as you feel so strongly about it. Per WP:SURNAME, Sir Michael O'Dwyer should really be referred to in the article as "O'Dwyer" after the first mention. I have spent some time in the past unpicking the confusion in this article between the two people and there is now a high risk that editors who are new to the article will be confused. Dormskirk (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for agreeing. I think using the full name takes care of such mistaken reading. In case it creates considerable issues we can revisit this again in future. Regards.  Venkat TL (talk) 11:18, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

text: Just wanted to point out that in the page Jallianwala Bagh massacre Dwyer is named everywhere without Sir, except once where an attributed quote is used. The same should be followed on this page too.  Venkat TL 
(talk) 14:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

text: If we are to discuss what to put in the main article in a calm and rational way, we should each say our piece, and respond after reflection. Deleting other peoples' talk page entries rather than responding to them gets us nowhere. NRPanikker (talk) 18:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Sir for Michael O'Dwyer