Talk:Direct Action Day

Evox777 added the following to the article in this edit:

"In fact nothing was planned for Direct Action Day except large-scale meetings all over the country and it was while the Muslims of Calcutta were attending such a meeting that the riot broke out, NOT IN the area of the meeting, but in the areas of the unprotected homes of these people. And the carnage that took place during these first few hours, where women and children fell as completely helpless and defenseless victims was greater than the subsequent retaliatory attacks by the Muslims on the predominantly Hindu areas."^[1]

I removed it from the article because the source is a book edited by McDermott, who is not a historian, and should not be cited for points of historical fact. Worse, the page from which the text is taken is condensed, without analysis, from From Purdah to Parliament, an autobiography by Shaista Ikramullah (who is not a historian either, nor a journalist). Ikramullah cites no sources for her assertions, simply saying "As far as I can judge the matter dispassionately I feel that this is not true" and then launching into her perceptions above. This has no place in a Wikipedia article about history. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

In re-inserting the above text in this edit, Evox777 also undid unrelated clarifications to what Chatterji wrote. Based on Evox777's edit summary, their comment above, and this comment left on my talk page, I assume that their reversion of the Chatterji clarifications was unintended. But if they or anyone else thinks that Chatterji blamed only the Muslim League for the riots, I would be happy to discuss it here. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

User:AhmedQureshi has selectively removed content about Muslims being targeted on dubious reasons. I also have other issues but will discuss them later. There was a revert by an IP address before Qureshi, I don't know if it's him since Qureshi created the account after. First he says there is no reliable source. That too when the article itself says with reliable sources there were killings of not only Hindus, but Muslims as well. I have quoted the article with references later on.

Then when I add several sources he frivolously them as non-reliable. Also he cites a reason that there a category "Persecution of Bengali Hindus". However, Direct Action Day#Background there is also a "Violence against Muslims in India" category. He dismissed all the sources I cited as "non-reliable", though I doubt he himself knows completely about WP:RELIABLE. One of the source I added is well-known publishers Taylor & Francis who also publishes books as academic journals, and it is reputed. One of the known author Tanika Sarkar. Another author Sekhar Bandyopadhyay is also a known scholar . The other two sources, Mahatma Gandhi: A Selected Biography page 26, Report to Lord Pethick-Lawrence are already in source which I also cite below.

Also here's some of the quotes from the articles contents woth sources that Muslims were targeted as well, it was violence between Hindus and Muslims both and not just on Hindus.

Direct Action Day (16 August 1946), also known as the Great Calcutta Killings, was a day of widespread riot and manslaughter between Hindus and Muslims in the city of Calcutta (now known as Kolkata) in the Bengal province of British India.^[1]

Some authors have claimed that most of the victims were Muslims.^[2]

Hindus and Sikhs were just as fierce as the Muslims in the beginning. Parties of one community would lie in wait, and as soon as they caught one of the other community, they would cut him to pieces.^[3]

AhmedQureshi is engaging in disruptive behavior by selectively removing text from the infobox which is sourced. I aks him to stop this. 117.215.225.128 (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's unnecessary to present only Hindus as the target. Therefore I changed it to civil conflict. 103.40.196.34 (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I see three sentences in the lead that say:

An IP removed the last of these sentences, and suddenly our attention to this problematic content. All this is completely wrong. There is nothing of this kind in any source. I see that fragments of the second sentence were added by User:Dwaipayanc way back in 2008 under a citation, making it appear as a sourced statement. Please don't do this. It destroys WP:Text-source integrity, and all kinds of junk passes for sourced content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing about this event, but phrases like "a hardline Muslim hooligan" suggest that I am not likely to find many answers here Gwaka Lumpa (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a sentence

• The Yahoo article itself does not cite any sources for this claim.
• Per WP:V, all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source.
• WP:RS requires that sources have clear editorial oversight. Yahoo News often functions as an aggregator (see WP:NEWSAGG), and in this case provides no evidence for the statement.
• Per WP:BURDEN, the responsibility to provide a citation lies with those who add or wish to keep the material.

Since the current reference fails to verify the claim, I suggest removing the sentence unless a reliable secondary source (e.g., an academic history book, peer-reviewed paper, or reputable contemporary report) can be found to support it.

--Mavrick2022 (talk) 17:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the, "Background" section, there is a sentence, "The Muslim League had thus said “goodbye to Constitutional methods” and was ready to “create trouble”, please add this after that, "Sir Firoz Khan Noon, a Muslim League leader had warned the British-Indian Government that the destruction and havoc the Muslims would cause would put what Chengiz Khan had done to shade.^[1]"-Baangla (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I have used one of the reliable sources cited already.-Baangla (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 16:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This article falls under Indian Military history which is supposed to be extended confirmed protected, even if the article seems to be unprotected - please see this and this.-Baangla (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The Australia News Today source is an opinion piece, so it shouldn't be used as a source. If it is being used in the article already it should be removed. Day Creature (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the current first and second sentences of the "Characteristics of the riot and demographics in 1946" section which reads as, "Suhrawardy put forth a great deal of effort to bring reluctant British officials around to calling the army in from Sealdah Rest Camp. Unfortunately, British officials did not send the army out until 1:45 a.m. on 17 August." as the source cited doesn't say so.-Baangla (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 16:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This article falls under Indian Military history which is supposed to be extended confirmed protected, even if the article seems to be unprotected - please see this and this.-Baangla (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

The link to the Google Books version of the cited source goes to the incorrect chapter and page (the correct page is not available for viewing). Did you just look at that, or did you check a physical copy of the book? Day Creature (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Day Creature, I am asking you to remove the sentence for the same reason.-Baangla (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: That doesn't answer my question. Were you able to review the correct chapter and page to confirm whether the source supports the text? Day Creature (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

The source doesn't support the text, so please delete it.-Baangla (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

In the, "Prelude" section, I found this sentence, "Suhrawardy put forth a great deal of effort to bring reluctant British officials around to calling the army in from Sealdah Rest Camp. Unfortunately, British officials did not send the army out until 1:45 a.m. on 17 August" with the correct source, so now you can delete what I am asking you to delete in the section I asked you to delete it from because it is a repetition of the same.-Baangla (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Done Day Creature (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just before the current first sentence of the "Characteristics of the riot and demographics in 1946" section, please add this sentence, "The 17th day of Ramzan (Ramadan) i.e. 16 August 1946, was chosen for launching Direct Action Day, "It was on that day that Prophet Muhammad waged the bloody Battle of Badr which resulted in his first decisive victory over the heathens and the subsequent conquest of Mecca."^[1]"-Baangla (talk) 09:47, 15 October 2025 (UTC)  Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 16:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This article falls under Indian Military history which is supposed to be extended confirmed protected, even if the article seems to be unprotected - please see this and this.-Baangla (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per my response to your previous edit request above -- that source is an opinion piece that can't be used. Day Creature (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the, "Noakhali riots" sub-section of the, "Further rioting in India" section of the, "Aftermath" section, just before the last sentence of the first paragraph which reads, "However, the violence was different in nature from Calcutta.", please add, "Muslim mobs attacked Hindus in retaliation for the Calcutta massacres, murdering 5,000 and uprooting thousands more during the Noakhali riots; Muslims were the ones who started the violence, but because they were a minority in Calcutta, they also suffered the most in Calcutta.^[1]"-Baangla (talk) 09:59, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 16:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This article falls under Indian Military history which is supposed to be extended confirmed protected, even if the article seems to be unprotected - please see this and this.-Baangla (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: Your proposed addition appears to conflate the later Noakholi riots with the earlier violence in Calcutta and is likely to cause confusion. Day Creature (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

@Day Creature: The sentence mentions Calcutta, so there will be no confusion, please add it.-Baangla (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No. It doesn't make sense to have 1 sentence that discusses both events. Day Creature (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the, "In popular culture" section, at the end, please replace the meaningless words, "and 2024 bengal film Maa Kali" with, "The 2024 film Maa Kali also picturised the Direct action day and Noakhali riots.^[1][2]"-Baangla (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Theeverywhereperson (talk here) 16:56, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This article falls under Indian Military history which is supposed to be extended confirmed protected, even if the article seems to be unprotected - please see this and this.-Baangla (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: I have removed the info about the film altogether, since it does not have its own article and therefore is unlikely to be notable enough to mention. Day Creature (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article falls under Indian Military history which is supposed to be extended confirmed protected, even if the article seems to be unprotected - please see this and this.-Baangla (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

To the, "Prelude" or "Background" section, please add, Even before Direct Action Day began, violence against Hindus in the name of Islam was being incited; several openly communal pamphlets were being circulated.^[1]-Baangla (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: This is already mentioned in the first paragraph of the Prelude section. Day Creature (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Day Creature: My sentence and source used are new and I believe they can be added to the, "Prelude" section, as the first sentence or after what you are referring to.-Baangla (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: No. Your proposed addition doesn't add anything important that isn't already in the article. Day Creature (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
Cheesewhizman (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Description of suggested change:

The last sentence of paragraph 3 of the Background section reads: "The Muslim League had thus said “goodbye to Constitutional methods” and was ready to “create trouble”.[28]" The quotations do not exist on page 64 of Yasmin Khan's 2017 book The Great Partition. They are not on any adjacent pages of that volume, either. These fabricated quotes portray The Muslim League negatively and inaccurately.

This sentence and Footnote #28 should be deleted: "The Muslim League had thus said “goodbye to Constitutional methods” and was ready to “create trouble”.[28]"

RiverScullerPDX.

Diff: Warning Unnamed parameter |1= set to default value. Please change it. Failure to use {{Text diff}} to specify your requested text changes, if not adequately described above, may lead to your request being denied.
RiverScullerPDX (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

"Goodbye to constitutional methods" was Jinnah, but we need better sourcing. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

The requester is correct that the book cited does not mention this wording. I have removed this citation. I have added a citation for "goodbye to constitutional methods". On a quick Google search, there do seem to be sources for the quote "create trouble", but none that are necessarily rigorously reliable. I have added a citation needed template. I do not think there is grounds to delete this sentence entirely. Closing edit request. SI09 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

When did Wikipedia about Direct Action Day created/How old wikipedia about Direct Action Day is? ~2025-38676-25 (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-38676-25: As you can see on the article's history page the English-language Wikipedia article was created on 9 August 2005. It has been modified many times since then. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)