Talk:Babbar Khalsa/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments by 82.44.156.246

In a recent revert, this anonymous IP wrote:

"Original extract from Babbar Khalsa page that was okayed by both its author and moderator Sukh...any1 wishing to add comments on Hawara and the trial of Air India bomibn do so on a new page, not this"

This is strictly false. Firstly, I'm not a "moderator". The concept of moderation doesn't really exist on Wikipedia and the closest thing is an administrator - which I'm not either. Secondly I certainly never "okayed" any version. I asked for many changes and many sources and agreed with the other editor that a week was a reasonable amount of time to retrieve them. Since then, no sources have been provided and thus I still have issues with the current version. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Not NPOV

Massive amounts of POV - especially in related links and the naming of people. Needs serious cleaning up :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have reformatted the entire website and I dont feel that there is anything that needs to be tidied up. I've read ur comments re. Babbar Khalsa on ur own page, and what I dont understand is your own flagrantly hypocritical stance on so-called "honorific" names such as "Shaheed". You wrote that such references *might* be acceptable if accepted by a large portion of the Sikh community: who gave you the right to decide what is and what isnt the majority view on a subject? There are photo's of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar in my local gurudwara in Southall, which speaks volumes: actions speak louder than words. As for the content, it is absolutely 100% true: the sources used here include the Federation of American Scientists, The Sikhs in History by Sangat Singh and archival information from Punjab Police, not to mention information gleaned from Amnesty International and the United Nations. What more do you want? You speak of a neutral point of view, but your own pro-India, anti-Khalistan standpoint is clouding and compromising the validity of the information in these same articles. I strongly suggest you improve ur own knowledge of Sikh history and read the Amnesty International and United Nations reports on Human Rights violations in Punjab before questioning the integrity of an article that is based on fact, not lies. The term Shaheed is perfectly applicable here as there is a sizeable portion of the Sikh community that harbor strong sentiments for the formation of Khalistan, whether thru violent or non-violent means, and as such have a favourable view of the Babbar Khalsa. Please do not let your own bias influence the education of others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikramSingh (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh at last, someone who seems like they may like to discuss the changes. I am away for four days now so I won't be able to have a meaningful discussion until later, however I still take issue with Saheed. Check back in a week. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 07:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Right, now that I'm back, I will attempt to address the points you raised.

"...flagrantly hypocritical stance on so-called "honorific" names such as "Shaheed"."

How exactly is my stance hypocritical? These titles are in no way their real names, nor sanctioned by any significant Sikh organisation nor is the term used by any large number of Sikhs. Even if it was acceptable to use Shaheed, you still would not refer to them constantly as "Shaheed Bhai Sukhdev Singh Babbar" and "Shaheed Bhai Talwinder Singh Parmar" which is farcicle at best. Instead you would use "Sukhdev Babbar" and "Talwinder Parmar" which is consistant with the way names are shortened in the English language.

"There are photo's of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar in my local gurudwara in Southall, which speaks volumes: actions speak louder than words."

How does that speak volumes about anything? The fact that one gurdwara in Southall has a picture of Babbar means what exactly?

"As for the content, it is absolutely 100% true: the sources used here include the Federation of American Scientists, The Sikhs in History by Sangat Singh and archival information from Punjab Police, not to mention information gleaned from Amnesty International and the United Nations. What more do you want?"

The main issues I had with this article were in earlier versions around the edit wars with Thetruth. Although the current version is actually better, it still has considerable problems. For starters, you may suggest various sources were used, but none are referrenced directly, no pages, dates, authors or anything of the like. I still have issues with these comments:

"the Babbar Khalsa is still capable of causing damage and hitting political targets."

Exactly how was this decided? This either needs expansion or it need removing.

"According to Punjab Police, the last words uttered by Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar were: "The Sukhdev Singh you have come to get has left, this body is an empty vessel, you may do with this as you wish.""

Okay, there is a reference claimed, but this quote turns up nothing but pro-Khalistan pages on Google. Again either a more direct reference is needed or it needs to be removed. I could claim that the Punjab Police said "googldy woogldy" which might have a "reference" but it wouldn't be credible in its current state.

The same can be said about “the most prominent militant leader since 1978” which again brings up pro-Khalistan pages and forums. For all I know, this could have been made up by someone and then propagated across web sites. I also have issues with subjective opinions such as "Furthermore, the romance and allure of the Sikh freedom fighting organisations, particularly the Babbar Khalsa, remains strong abroad."

You wrote: "I strongly suggest you improve ur own knowledge of Sikh history and read the Amnesty International and United Nations reports on Human Rights violations in Punjab before questioning the integrity of an article that is based on fact, not lies."

I don't have issue with the Human Rights violations (which in my opinion did occur) and as you can see, I've not been debating those issues. I merely ask for a balance of opinion and sources to back up those opinions. I will not edit this article for a day or two so that you can reply to my comments. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

“nor sanctioned by any significant Sikh organisation nor is the term used by any large number of Sikhs”

I strongly disagree with this statement: the usage of Shaheed to highlight fallen Sikh soldiers is used by many significant organisations, including PanthKhalsa.org and Akhand Kirtani Jatha. The latter is widely active in the United Kingdom and organises a variety of events concerning the development of Sikhi in Sikh Youth. Moreover, the term Shaheed is used informally by many pro-Khalistan politicians, such as the Council for Khalistan as well as by Khalistan protagnists that are recognised by the Government of India itself, namely the Dal Khalsa. I can understand your querying of the issue, but the name Shaheed is widely used to illustrate those who gave their life in a just cause.

“These titles are in no way their real names”

This is an obvious statement: the title Shaheed is conferred upon an individual for a sacrifice that he or she makes, much in the same way that Baba Deep Singh Ji is referred to as a Shaheed for his role in defying Ahmed Shah Abdali. Nobody is under any illusions as to think that the term Shaheed is actually somebody’s name, as you are suggesting. It is indeed a honorific title conferred upon somebody as a result of the sacrifice they have made, just as the term Babbar is applied to somebody who is a member of the Babbar Khalsa. Your quotation is completely irrelevant and carries no argument.

“Even if it was acceptable to use Shaheed, you still would not refer to them constantly as "Shaheed Bhai Sukhdev Singh Babbar" and "Shaheed Bhai Talwinder Singh Parmar" which is farcicle at best. Instead you would use "Sukhdev Babbar" and "Talwinder Parmar" which is consistant with the way names are shortened in the English language”

I am willing to accept the changing of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar to Sukhdev Babbar and Talwinder Parmar provided that the initial use of Shaheed occurs, thereby depicting their true status in recent Sikh history. Other than that, this is a simple grammatical error.

"There are photo's of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar in my local gurudwara in Southall, which speaks volumes: actions speak louder than words.” How does that speak volumes about anything? The fact that one gurdwara in Southall has a picture of Babbar means what exactly?”

Gurdwaras in Southall represent over 50,000 Sikhs in and around London. The posting of a Babbar Khalsa picture in one of them is a representation of what the sangat believes in, since the gurdwara is, in many ways, a mouthpiece of the Sikh community in western London. Hence, if many gurdwaras in Southall display pictures of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar, as is the case (it is not just ONE), this demonstrates a large support within the Sikh community for the underlying aim of Babbar Khalsa: Khalistan.

“The main issues I had with this article were in earlier versions around the edit wars with Thetruth. Although the current version is actually better, it still has considerable problems. For starters, you may suggest various sources were used, but none are referrenced directly, no pages, dates, authors or anything of the like.”

Ok, fair enough, I will reference the evidence I have supplied…but there needs to be a compromise here since it will take some time. Give me a week to reference these properly.

"the Babbar Khalsa is still capable of causing damage and hitting political targets."

Exactly how was this decided? This either needs expansion or it need removing.

This can be easily expanded upon since there are numerous news articles, though they are heavily biased in favour of an extremely pro-India (and hence anti-Khalistan) stance. Again, references to these will be added, but will take a week. Allow time for this to occur.

“The same can be said about “the most prominent militant leader since 1978” which again brings up pro-Khalistan pages and forums. For all I know, this could have been made up by someone and then propagated across web sites.”

This quote was taken from India Today, and is NOT an opinion that has been propagated across the www. I will acquire the reference for this too.

"I also have issues with subjective opinions such as "Furthermore, the romance and allure of the Sikh freedom fighting organisations, particularly the Babbar Khalsa, remains strong abroad."

I don’t understand how you can have issues with that. It is publicly known that there is an undercurrent of support for Khalistan abroad, particularly in the UK, Canada and to a lesser extent, the USA. The hanging pictures of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale Ji and the destruction of the Shri Akal Takhat following Bluestar 1984 in a multitude of gurdwaras in the UK alone is testament to the seething anger still present today regarding the Indian government. The pictures of Babbar Khalsa and other freedom fighters also reinforces the view that many Sikhs still have raw emotions about the formation of Khalistan. The pro-Khalistan literature handed out during Vaisakhi in areas all over England highlights the support for Khalistan. I believe that this statement of yours is completely baseless: yes, I may not be able to provide hard evidence since the support is almost wholly covert and undercurrent, but there is a huge consensus in the UK that support for Khalistan is vibrant to say the least. Much of this support for Khalistan can be traced back to the “romantic” notion of Sikh freedom fighters a la Babbar Khalsa, hence justifying my original statement.

I do understand some of the queries being made, but others do not have any real claim to them, the latter being a prime example. I want a fair and balanced portrayal of the Babbar Khalsa too, and as such, I ask you to show some common sense in your approach to dealing with its editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikramSingh (talk • contribs) 00:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for replying! I was a bit skeptical at first that you would reply because I've had many people edit Khalistan and associated articles without any discussion, thinking their edits will stay because they've put them there. However, you seem to wish to have a meaningful discussion and I'm more than happy to reach a compromise with you.

"...but the name Shaheed is widely used to illustrate those who gave their life in a just cause."

You see, this is the issue. In your opinion, these people were martyrs - many people, including many Sikhs would disagree.

"I am willing to accept the changing of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar to Sukhdev Babbar and Talwinder Parmar provided that the initial use of Shaheed occurs, thereby depicting their true status in recent Sikh history. Other than that, this is a simple grammatical error."

Maybe we can use the comprise I've added for the Sikh Gurus? I've listed the Gurus pages under their standard non-honourific names (I suppose 'Guru' could be seen as honourific, but that's what they're mostly known as) and then added the full name in the introduction. For example, Guru Gobind Singh is listed as Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji in the introduction, but thereafter *and* on all other pages, simply Guru Gobind Singh is listed. Also, the honourific titles are not in bold to signify that they are 'additions'. I'm willing to accept a similiar compromise with this case.

"Gurdwaras in Southall represent over 50,000 Sikhs in and around London. The posting of a Babbar Khalsa picture in one of them is a representation of what the sangat believes in, since the gurdwara is, in many ways, a mouthpiece of the Sikh community in western London. Hence, if many gurdwaras in Southall display pictures of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar, as is the case (it is not just ONE), this demonstrates a large support within the Sikh community for the underlying aim of Babbar Khalsa: Khalistan."

Well I could counter that by saying my local gurdwara displays no political pictures at all. The only martyrdom pictures are from the age of the Gurus.

"Ok, fair enough, I will reference the evidence I have supplied…but there needs to be a compromise here since it will take some time. Give me a week to reference these properly."

I am more than willing to wait. I will accept anything which is properly cited with reliable sources. If reliable sources aren't available, I could comprise is to state the biased information from both sides :D

"I don’t understand how you can have issues with that. It is publicly known that there is an undercurrent of support for Khalistan abroad, particularly in the UK, Canada and to a lesser extent, the USA."

Yes this is my experience - support for Khalistan outside of India is much greater than within the Sikh community in India.

"I may not be able to provide hard evidence since the support is almost wholly covert and undercurrent, but there is a huge consensus in the UK that support for Khalistan is vibrant to say the least. Much of this support for Khalistan can be traced back to the “romantic” notion of Sikh freedom fighters a la Babbar Khalsa, hence justifying my original statement."

Okay that's fine. I'm okay for keeping that in.

"I do understand some of the queries being made, but others do not have any real claim to them, the latter being a prime example."

I think all my queries had a real claim to them. The last one was a minor one and I'm willing to accept your explanation. (I do agree that there is a lot of support for Khalistan in the Sikh diaspora, although again, I would not say there was a majority.)

" I want a fair and balanced portrayal of the Babbar Khalsa too, and as such, I ask you to show some common sense in your approach to dealing with its editing."

Of course - I show common sense in all my edits! I think you are a person who is willing to discuss the issues, so I'd like to work with you to clean up related articles such as Khalistan which are constantly subject to revert wars (mostly due to pro-Khalistan edits). I have no problem showing both sides of the story, but adding lots of propaganda without references just makes it worse.

Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC) PS. Please sign your messages with four tildes (~) and indent your messages using ':' which makes it easier to track the conversation.

"Hi - thanks for replying! I was a bit skeptical at first that you would reply because I've had many people edit Khalistan and associated articles without any discussion, thinking their edits will stay because they've put them there. However, you seem to wish to have a meaningful discussion and I'm more than happy to reach a compromise with you"

Well, first things first, i am pro-Khalistan and anti-India, i make no qualms about that. The beliefs and opinions that were expressed previously were made with an air of quiet confidence that can only be obtained thru hours upon hours of attempted understanding of the Sikh faith. I dont claim to be a Sant or know my way around Sikhi better than everyone. I just want to share with people information and knowledge that is fact, and express it as it should be told, not in an overly pro-India, anti-Khalistan ideology which, unfortunately, is all too prevalent in modern Sikh academic circles.

"I am willing to accept the changing of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar to Sukhdev Babbar and Talwinder Parmar provided that the initial use of Shaheed occurs, thereby depicting their true status in recent Sikh history. Other than that, this is a simple grammatical error."

Maybe we can use the comprise I've added for the Sikh Gurus? I've listed the Gurus pages under their standard non-honourific names (I suppose 'Guru' could be seen as honourific, but that's what they're mostly known as) and then added the full name in the introduction. For example, Guru Gobind Singh is listed as Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji in the introduction, but thereafter *and* on all other pages, simply Guru Gobind Singh is listed. Also, the honourific titles are not in bold to signify that they are 'additions'. I'm willing to accept a similiar compromise with this case."

This suits me fine as it enables the title of Shaheed to remain. I accept that for grammatical accuracy, the title thereafter should be removed. I have no intent upon pursuing this matter further provided that "Shaheed" is implemented in the article at the beginning.

"Gurdwaras in Southall represent over 50,000 Sikhs in and around London. The posting of a Babbar Khalsa picture in one of them is a representation of what the sangat believes in, since the gurdwara is, in many ways, a mouthpiece of the Sikh community in western London. Hence, if many gurdwaras in Southall display pictures of Shaheed Sukhdev Singh Babbar, as is the case (it is not just ONE), this demonstrates a large support within the Sikh community for the underlying aim of Babbar Khalsa: Khalistan."

Well I could counter that by saying my local gurdwara displays no political pictures at all. The only martyrdom pictures are from the age of the Gurus."

Well, here we are just going to have to agree to disagree, because we could go back and forth numerous times. As with the general Sikh diaspora, there are gurdwaras which proactively support the Khalistan cause (which I myself personally deem just) and there are those gurdwaras that do not. They are all houses of worship of Satnaam Waheguru and I;m going to leave this discussion here: I do not see the point in discussing how a gurdwara should or should not be run thru the prism of whether they are pro or anti Khalistan.

As for the referencing, please give me a week or so to add references. I am currently busy and unable to do this, but I WILL do it. Knowledge as important and shocking as this should be referenced so to reinforce the claim that many pro-Khalistan groups have.

Thank you for your healthy discussion. As for the Khalistan article, I am willing to help you edit it and demonstrate the facts in their entirety, but I have limited time, so if you wish to contact me for further help, then feel free to do so via email, as the Khalistan issue is a passionate subject that I hold dear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.156.246 (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a crack at removing the most egregious PoV statements. This article desparately needs references/links and a section providing a dispassionate narrative presenting the views of those (apparently both numerous and powerful) groups opposed to this organization.--FRS 18:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Ideas, anyone?

Hi, having gone through the current and some previous versions of this article, I strongly believe that it is POV in current form. I've some ideas for improving it, but as I believe that I lack the domain expertise, I'd just list them here, so that interested people can take a look and add to, or modify the list.

1) Babbar Akali was active in 1920 while Babbar Khalsa was conceived in 1978. Hence, the origin cannot be traced to Babbar Akali; perhaps, it can be stated that Babbar Khalsa was inspired by Babbar Akali. If strong claims to the origin need to be made, common links - in terms of leaders, modus operandi etc. need to be outlined.

2) That the Nirankaris are a sect makes it clear that they wd have some differences from mainstream Sikhs in terms of customs and traditions. Apart from that, all references to the sect in the article apear to be POV.

3) The article makes it clear that Babbar Khalsa was born with the killing of a Nirankari leader. It appears from the passage that the struggle led by Babbar Khalsa was more for the leadership of the Sikh community rather than its independence from India.

4) As several orgns. were active in the struggle for Khalistan, Babbar Khalsa's role among these orgns and their relations with one another need to be discussed.

5) Most importantly, the causes of rifts between S. S. Babbar and T. S. Parmar must be talked about - was it financial, ideological or fight for leadership?

6) Details about the recent arrest of Hawara and his place in the organisation need to be added.

Thanks, --Gurubrahma 07:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I generally agree with above, but would add that the view (apparently widely held) that this group is a terrorist organization should not be suppressed. Editors are urged to look at the results of this Google search [1]. Two messages come from this result: (1) WP is ranked first among the searches, so our resonsibility in providing complete and NPOV coverage is great (2) an adjective widely associated with this group is "terrorist." The WP article, of course, does not need to endorse this characterization, but neither should it be ignored. FRS 05:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Okay, first things first, I am the editor of this Babbar Khalsa page. I do not know who made remarks on my behalf vis-a-vis any agreement with the page administrator, Sukh. However, suffice to say, it wasnt me. I have read the above comments and I think i understands the views and sentiments that are being mentioned. I will make the necessary changes to the page regarding links and regarding extra information around 16-17 December, as this is when my medical exams end. One note worthy of mention is that a Google search, despite the reputation of the search engine, is inherently biased, as anybody with a tacit understanding of the internet can produce a webpage denigrating Babbar Khalsa as a terrorist organisation. I am pro-Khalistan, and proud of it. But I am a Khlaistan protagonist who knows his facts.

Suffice to say, during the height of militancy in the late 1980s, Babbar Khalsa was not deemed a terrorist organisation by the UK, USA or Canada. Is it not a coincidence that since the liberalistion and opening of the Indian economy in 1991, under the careful aegis of the now PM Manmohan Singh, that the very same Western nations have hiterto ploughed billions of dollars into the Indian economy and that the branding of Babbar Khalsa, intertwined with the relevant low-key militancy at the time being, is merely an attempt to cosy up to the Indian leadership and a policy that is conducive to their own respective economic and business interests?

Im not saying that this theory is right or wrong, but it is certainly worth mentioning when one talks about the proscribing of Babbar Khalsa and other Sikh organisations. Anyone who believes that Western nations act strictly in the pursuit of human rights and democracy without at least one eye on their own interests is naive at the very least.

The facts that have been mentioned by Amnesty international, an organisation still not allowed to function freely in india, also lend credulence to these fighters being freedom fighters, rather than terrorists. I agree some outrages were conducted by Sikh terrorists, but Amnesty International itself has recorded 2,093 unidentified bodies that Punjab Police extra-judically cremated in 3 crematoria in Amritsar. Furthermore, the Indian Supreme Court only recently convicted Punjab Police officers of killing the human rights activist Jaswant Singh Khalra.

Lastly, the "an adjective widely associated with Babbar Khalsa" statement is a non-starter. The vast majority of websites, in the range of 75% upwards, that proscribe Babbar Khalsa as a terrorist organisation are Indian and very pro-India and anti-Khalistan. If you are to talk about POV regarding this article, then you have to question the POV of the editors and authors of those webpages that you so eloquently subscribe to. I will mention that some people think of this organisation as a terrorist one, but when I do so, I will make sure that it is known to the reader that this view is widely held by those who are inherently pro-India and/or anti-Khalistan. You would struggle to find a sizeable number of Sikhs who believed in their heart of hearts that BKI and others were wholly terrorist organisations. A comparison of the differing views held by the USA and the UK on the IRA would be a perfect example.

Regarding the Nirankari-Sikh clash of 1978: if the passage is making out that the BKI was trying to lead the Sikh community, then I shall make amendments to it. The Babbar Khalsa was not the only organisation there: the Akhand Kirtani Jatha was also present. As it seems from your comments that this webpage is confusing on that matter, it shall be cleared.

Regarding more intricate knowledge of the ongoings within the Babbar Khalsa, it must be remembered that this organisation was fighting occupation forces in Punjab, and as such, not all of its activites were broadcast from the rooftops. Moreover, this occurred in an era where information was not freely available. I have heard that the schism between Shaheed Bhai Sukhdev Singh Babbar and Shaheed Talwinder Singh Parmar were ideological rather than anything else. I shall see if I can improve my knowledge on such matters.

The arrest of Hawara will also be mentioned, tho his involvement within the Babbar Khalsa is far more restrained than made out by the pro-India media. Nevertheless, I will try to make the matter more clear.

I am serious about making genuine corrections to this page and I welcome any dialogue that makes the gross human rights violations in Punjab more open to the public, but I wont stand by while it is defamed and unaccurately protrayed as a terrorist organisation. i will make my amendments around 16-17th December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikSingh (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC

Well, I'm sure we will welcome your inputs, but you should understand that referring to yourself as "the editor" and to someone else as "the page administrator" is not in conformance with the policy or philosophy of Wikipedia. --FRS 18:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with FRS as per above; also, as per WP:V, whatever you may add or modify needs to be verifiable. That there was no coverage of BKI or that BKI "did not shout from the rooftops" may not be helpful. --Gurubrahma 19:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources/citations

Although the new paragraph added by wiretowire I just deleted is frankly not that much worse than the rest of the article, I felt it was time to draw a line. This is the paragraph:

"As of today, a few punjabi's may have got away with false allegations of human right abuses. These individuals have blackmail as being part of the Babbar Khalsa and other sikh militant organizations. These individuals ask for political asylum in order to be protected in countries they settle in. These countries include USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Switzerland and Pakistan."

The first sentence is unacceptably PoV, the second sentence is not grammatical nor quite understandable. The third and fourth sentences need a citation. FRS 16:13, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV banner

I think this article has come along quite well and I personally don't believe we need this banner on anymore. There are some bits that still need references (indicated by 'citation needed') but on the whole, the article appears NPOV to me. Is there anyone who thinks I should NOT remove the banner? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I've removed the banner. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Delhi Bomb Blasts

I don't believe that there is any evidence that the Delhi Bomb Blasts were carried out by Babbar Khalsa International. As far as I know, Jagtar Singh Hawara specifically stated that BKI did NOT do it and condems the killing of innocents. It is in my opinion that the afforementioned fact be added to the article in a NPOV manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssk84 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More info

Can anyone please tell me the official web site Babbar Khalsa International.

Thanks a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manvinder (talk • contribs) 13:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Recent events

This section is awful - it needs a re-write from someone who understands the situation. --Charlesknight 19:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Sukhdev Singh Babbar

It has been sugested in a recent AfD that Sukhdev Singh Babbar, may be merged here. - Nabla (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should be merged as the babbar khalsa article talks about the entire group while sukhdev article talks about him onlyProfitoftruth85 (talk) 10:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

"Freedom fighters"

Its members are also called Freedom Fighters.^[1]

I see where people speak generally about freedom fighters. I don't see any tie to BK.- sinneed (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes! generally, but! about Khalistan movement related militants only. This book "Fighting for Faith and Nation" focuses specifically on those who had taken up arms in order to achieve Khalistan and on the communities that support them. Babbar Khalsa was one of few Sikh militant organizations, and it took up arms to achieve Khalistan. Based on the normal public conversations, this book used this combination of 2 Words, i.e. "freedom fighter" 19 times in its text. It is spread evenly in the whole book, It is a proof that all Sikh militants, who belonged to Khalistan movement (regardless of their organizations) were known as "Freedom Fighters" in general public. --99.51.223.161 (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No. But thanks for finding and adding actual sources.- sinneed (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More fully, that would be wp:Synthesis, and we don't do that in Wikipedia.- sinneed (talk) 03:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I still don't know what I did wrong with the edits. Sorry it makes the history look weird. Please review the proposed wording... do we really need to add that according to BKI its people are "freedom fighters" and that according to the government reps of the people at large they are terrorists? Or can we focus on the organization?- sinneed (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Encompassing: Webster's Quotations is a database dump of all words relating to a subject. It is also wp:CIRCULAR. The repeated addition of this to various articles reduces the credibility of the editor adding it, and makes it harder and harder to wp:AGF. Please don't add WP as a source again. Please especially don't add a database dump of all freely licensed words on a wide variety of subjects as a wp:RS.- sinneed (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Source

"Punjab Police recover 15 kg RDX, ammunition - Hindustan Times". Retrieved 3 August 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profitoftruth85 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Babbar Khalsa. 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/20061119150657/http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp to http://www.psepc.gc.ca/prg/ns/le/cle-en.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716143902/http://www.ialeia.org/files/docs/dossier2_ENG.pdf to http://www.ialeia.org/files/docs/dossier2_ENG.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109171020/http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9bfcf081-3b29-45ea-8bb3-ad82c051bcbb to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9bfcf081-3b29-45ea-8bb3-ad82c051bcbb
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.umanitoba.ca/arts/ppsa/papers/Zekulin.PPSA.2010.doc

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

POV supporting banned terrorist organization and calling them freedom fighters

This is shocking to see huge POV, several attempts to dilute the designated terrorist status of BKI, no appropriate weightage has been assigned to this fact and minor sources have been given prominence, This needs clean up. There is a clear distinction between resistance movement versus an organization massacaring innocent civilians. BKI is a banned terrorist organization, by UK, EU, GErmany, Canada, USA, India and more, ample references have been provided, opinion of small number and lower status organizations do not count as much and they should not e put upfront and should not be used ehavily to distort the facts to term the terrorists are freedom fighters. What more is neeed? Further more read here the distinction between resistance movement versus terrorist organizations like BKI. BKI terrorists have been convicted in Canada, USA, India and Europe, many of those on their self-confession and corroborative evidence. Enough POV please. Enough supporting, glorifying and diluting the bad deeds of terrorism. Enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:E800:E61E:452:AC65:E9E9:815C:C917 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Not removed from list of terrorist organizations in Canada

Canada Gazette EXTRA Vol. 146, No. 1, SOR/2012-162 (August 20, 2012) "Regulations Amending the Regulations Establishing a List of Entities" LINK TO HTML VERSION may be erroneously interpreted to remove BK from Canada's list of terrorist entites isofar as s.1(1) deletes "Babbar Khalsa (BK)" from the list; however, s.7 (two pages later) replaces "Babbar Khalsa International (BKI)" with "Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) (also known as Babbar Khalsa). This information my prove useful to anyone trying to fix erroneous edits that may pop up now that this issue of the Gazette has been published and distributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.215.11 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)