Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 5

Untitled

From April 2006 to May 2006

Third opinion offered

I came here via Wikipedia:Third opinion, and per the nature of that page, would like to offer my commentary. This article is on a very worthy subject, but it is written in such a way as to be highly biased and virtually unreadable. As an example of bias, consider the following sentence from the article:

"The Indian army’s invasion of the Golden Temple, which is remembered as a ghalughara (holocaust) by Sikhs, claimed as many as “7,000 to 8,000” lives according to some eyewitness accounts."

Let's look at this piece by piece:

"The Indian army’s invasion of the Golden Temple,"

Actually, I'd say this is fair. "Invasion" can be a loaded word, but as a third-party observer, I'd say that it is warranted.

"which is remembered as a ghalughara (holocaust) by Sikhs,"

Really? All Sikhs? Every last one of them? Because that's essentially what this says, and it isn't true. Sikhs aren't a monolithic, single-minded entity; various Sikhs doubtless have highly varied rememberences and opinions of the event. Therefore, the sentence needs to be qualified. You could say "a few Sikhs" or "some Sikhs" or "many Sikhs" or even "most Sikhs", depending on how widespred these opinions are in the Sikh community. I, myself, obviously have no idea -- I just know that simply saying "Sikhs" is unacceptably broad, and cannot possibly be true.

"claimed as many as “7,000 to 8,000” lives according to some eyewitness accounts."

This claim is sourced,which is good -- although who is making those claims is unclear from the sourcing, which is bad. If I had the publication that is being referenced, I could figure it out, but lacking that publication, this crucial information is missing. Meanwhile no other claims are presented, which is very bad. Why only refer to some eyewitness accounts? What about the rest of them? What does the government of India say about it? What does the United Nations say about it? What have journalists, academic researchers, politicians, and so forth said about it? Where a claim such as this one is highly contested, it is not Wikipedia's job to sort out "the truth". Rather, the competing claims should be presented alongside each other, with the people or entities making the claims clearly identified. Anything else is overly POV.

All of this is missing the larger point, which is that Operation Blue Star should really be detailed in its own article, with only a tangential mention in this one, as one of many factors that play into the desire to establish Khalistan. Actually, at least half of the article should be merged into articles that are found here. This would make the various disputed topics more contained, and greatly improve the article's overall readibility. What remains of the article should be re-written in conformance with the NPOV techniques that I've described above. Skybum 04:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Skybum, this is very useful and constructive feedback. You should go through the rest of the article and point of similar rhetoric that can be modified or improved upon. Earlier, this article was twice the size and we have made significant progress. Right now, if we are to be successful, we should make the text as objective as possible and then we can worry about the length issue. Zafarnamah 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Utter nonsense

As a Sikh myself, I can not comprehend that such nonsense can be written on this page.

To comment on the line" that a systematic killing of sikhs between age 15-35 was carried out by the Indian army". The Indian army has a very large % of sikhs in its ranks. Why would we kill our own kind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.224.176 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

For the very same reason Jews killed Jews during the Holocaust and blacks were accused of being "House Negros" by Malcolm X during the African-American civil rights movement. Zafarnamah 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The percentage of Sikhs in the Indian Army in 1984 was 15%. Hardly a huge or "very large %" as u point out, and moreover, highlighting ur own ineptitude, the Sikh regiments were positioned as far as West Bengal and the Deccan to prevent mutinites. The Sikh regiments were not involved in Operation Bluestar nor Operation Woodrose, although it is true to say that a few Sikhs were involved in Operation Bluestar, probably to provide secular legitimacy to the invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VikSingh (talk • contribs) 02:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

15% is a huge number for a minority group that only comprises 2% of the population. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh but lets not bring facts here. 15% is peanuts. And all Sikhs who fought against the Khalistani terrorists were race traitors and need not be mentioned. In fact, they were there to provide "secular legitimacy" to the "invasion". - Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

Unprotect page

Is everyone in agreement that we can now unprotect the page and start editing? However, to stop revert wars I think that if someone has a problem with someone elses edit, they should let it stand and what until a consensus forms on the talk page. Is this good for all parties involved? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with the idea of forming a consensus before changes are made. I recommend starting the our last consensus version before Anmol came to the scene. Zafarnamah 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to my concerns in the previous post. You will find a very strong objection from me if emphasis is not made on measuring the present strength of the movement in terms of deaths and other violent incidents associated with it in comparison to when it was in its prime. I will not accept wikipedia to be used as grounds for any artificial inflation of a movement. Bye. --Blacksun 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a wiki. Feel free to edit it as you please. And as I mentioned above, deaths and violent incidents are definately a "measurement" of the movement, but they're not the only one. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, I would be very interested in how you intend to make such calculations when Human Rights activists still haven't been able to quantify the number of people killed when the movement was at its peak. You need this number to make a comparison, don't you? Zafarnamah 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite simply you include the official numbers and numbers given by various other groups. It really does not matter as I am fairly certain whatever numbers you use, it will show the almost non-existance of the movement at present. --Blacksun 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no official numbers calculated by any agency according to my knowledge. Zafarnamah 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My problem with this article

"While major issues remain unresolved, the Khalistan movement which once was characterized by violence by Sikhs militants and human rights abuses by the Indian state, has become mostly a peaceful movement with political parties such as Akali Dal (Amritsar) seeking self-determination using political means.[7]."

1. What other political parties besides Akali Dal (Amritsar) since you use "such as"?
2. How many seats/votes does this party win? Is it a major political party?

Without this information, one has no way to gauge just how significant (or insignificant) this so-called peace movement is. In general, the last sentence of this article "However, as an effective movement, Khalistan is all but dead and Indian Punjab seems to be on a path to healing old wounds." should be included in the leading paragraph as it is the reality on the grounds. --Blacksun 06:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The Akali Dal is not a minor party in the context of Punjab (which is what is relevant here). It won 8 of 13 seats in the last election [1] and is allied with the BJP. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry sukh, your information is INCORRECT. This is akali dal (Amritsar) which is DIFFERENT than Akali dal you are referring to. Their are scores of smaller akali dal parties. --Blacksun 20:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see you're correct. Uhmm, I think these parties need to think of more imaginative names. :D Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sukh I have no problems with adding different points of views related to human rights abuses, number of people that died, etc. However, IT IS WRONG to HIDE the fact that KHALISTAN DOES NOT ENJOY THE kind of support it had in 80s and that normalcy has long returned to Punjab. When one reads the entire leading paragraph you find no metion of this (till I added one line which was quickly reverted by zafarnamah). Wikipedia is NOT a platform for every small parties that may exist to launch its agenda nor is it a platform to keep alive movements that have failed in real world. --Blacksun 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do you seem to have the feeling that I'm disagreeing with you? I've consistently talked with Zafarnamah about how I think the movement is dead. You have no issue with me trying to source that opinion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The other political party recently formed is Dal Khalsa, which is also openly Khalistani. It remains to be seen how well they do in elections. Zafarnamah 12:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, I need the date when the article claiming that the movement lost its support in the 1990s was written and what sources does it cite. This is in reference to the intro text that you have inserted. Zafarnamah 21:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It clearly states June 2002 in the citation. Now why is the adjective "minor" not appropriate for a minor political party? For example, do you think their is a difference between the significance of the views expressed by Republican party in USA versus some random Independent party? If their is a difference should that difference not be expressed?--Blacksun 22:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Blacksun here, if the AD (A) has not won any seats, it is minor. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Simranjit Singh Mann, the leader of this party, is not a minor figure. He has been an MP numerous time and once won by a landslide victory while he was contesting the election from a jail cell. The party politics in Punjab is very random and changes based on the alliances a party forms. For instance, if Akali Dal Badal abandons its alliance with BJP, it will come out a loser in the next election. As a compromise, I think it is fair to not use any adjective at all.

Zafarnamah 22:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, their is no compromise. One seat does not make it a big party. Furthermore, what year did he win a seat? Have they won anything in recent times? AD (A) is a minor party no matter how you try to term it. You are being stubborn here and any arbitration will agree with me and I am willing to take it to there. "has not managed to do well during the most recent elections" that is soooooooo M I S L E A D I N G. They have NEVER done well in elections unless you consider winning one seat is "well." --Blacksun 03:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, you are MISLEADING yourself by giving too much credence to electoral politics in Punjab. I intend to cite plenty of references to show how reliable such a metric can be. For beginners you can take a look at Farid Zakaria, the illustrious editor of Newsweek International, for his work entitled, The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad, in which he details the corrput ways votes are garnered in India. More on this later with specific page numbers, etc. Also, what about organizations that refuse to recognize the Indian Constitution and do not want to be a part of electoral politics? More on that coming as well. Zafarnamah 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you are attacking the reliability of India's electoral process. Oh my god. WOW WOW WOW. One person's opinion does not make India's election results so grossly unreliable that you cannot judge the popularity of a party that never wins a seat. NOPE. REVERT IT IS. I can find a book and a site that claims electoral process of ANY country to be a fraud - that does not mean you go around posting on every democratic nations website that such and such person claims electoral process is trash. MAJORITY of the world accepts India's electoral process as a very reliable measure and it is considered as a vibrant democracy. Ofcourse, their are cases of ballot stuffing (especially in the past and some states like UP and Bihar) but on the grand scale of things it is minor and definitely nowhere near the scale of not considering Indian election results as relevant. You are breaking the consensus reached amongst various wikipedian articles related to Indian democracy and ALSO other democratic nations by penning such an arrogant statement that completely trashes the will of the people of Punjab and India. Seriously consider if you want to expend your energy on supporting following hypothesis: "India's election process is grossly corrupted and unreliable and hence, one cannot consider the election results for Akali Dal (Amritsar) as a true representation of the support for that party in Indian state of Punjab." --Blacksun 04:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"Also, what about organizations that refuse to recognize the Indian Constitution and do not want to be a part of electoral politics? More on that coming as well": what about them?? It is totally irrelevant to the argument that these two parties have not proven to be successfull. Wikipedia is not a site to advertise every organization that exists or ever existed in the world. If their are such organizations (as I am sure their are) then really think honestly if they are significant enough to find a place in this article and if so, whether they are significant enough to belong in the lead. Depending on your decision be ready to prove it with legitimate sources. Seriously, you are so obsessed with turning this article into showing that Khalistan is alive and kicking. Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA - it is not a political platform. --Blacksun 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, you have too much time on your hands; that's good for you. I have one thing to say. I am not willing to accept electoral politics as the best measure of support of a successionist movement, when many Khalistanis do not support elections! You have to be kidding when you attack Zakria for explaining India's corrupt electoral system by citing U.P. Punjab also has very same problems with alcohol and bribes being used by political parties. If you can find research to the contrary--showing how Zakria is wrong--I will be happy to revise my views. Here are two citations from the Tribune on Punjab after a very cursory google search; I have seen better articles, however:

Check use of drugs to woo voters: PCMSA Tribune News Service

I am sorry but I have bought zakrias book. Unless you can find a quote that says Punjabs election cannot be considered as reliable this will not be allowed. You are not a credible expert to draw ANY conclusions. Infact, Zakria does not even s tate that India's election in general cannot be considered as reliable. He is merely pointing out various flaws in some states. Sorry this does not allow you to draw parallels with Punjab. --Blacksun 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sangrur, January 21

The Punjab Civil Medical Services Association (PCMSA) today urged the Election Commission to appoint special election observers on the pattern of observers (expenditure) and observers (general) to check the use of drugs and alcohol by contesting candidates in Punjab to woo voters.

In a press note issued here today, Dr Hardeep Singh and Dr Surinder Singla, president and general secretary, respectively, of the PCMSA, expressed concern over the possibility of free flow of drugs like opium and bhuki (poppy husk), besides alcohol, to lure voters in the elections. They said this practice was in violation of the election code in terms of expenditure (on purchase of drugs and alcohol), the NDPS Act and the Excise Act.

The association leaders also urged the Election Commission to take stringent action against the candidates and political parties involved in this malpractice.

Dr Hardeep Singh and Dr Singla said it was an opportunity for the Election Commission, political parties, candidates and social organisations to put an end to this activity and take stringent action against the erring persons.

Aiming for drug-free elections Tribune News Service

Ludhiana, January 12

With drugs and alcohol likely to flow freely in the impending Punjab Assembly elections, a number of social organisations, educationists and anti-drug associations have begun a signature campaign against the use of drugs in the elections. They have also given a call to all political parties to announce in the election manifestoes that they would take steps to make Punjab free from drugs if voted to power.

The Social and Health Services Directorate, Guru Gobind Singh Study Circle based in Ludhiana, which has taken the initiative of such a campaign has written letters to all major political parties of Punjab demanding a clear-cut stand about their concern on the growing menace of drug abuse in Punjab.

Prof. Sarabjeet Singh, Director, Social & Health Services Directorate and a spokesperson of the organisations, has appealed to the presidents and other office-bearers of political parties to issue strict guidelines to their cadres and contesting candidates not to distribute alcohol or other drugs to lure the voters.

More than 40 office bearers of various political parties, including sitting MLAs and Ministers, have till date filled the declarations forms stating that they will not distribute alcohol and other drugs and will not promote the person indulged in such activity.

__________________

I will add these references and find other scholarly sources as well.

Zafarnamah 22:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Restart Indentation

Good for you. Too bad this still does not let you state that the elections are grossly corrupted and hence cannot be used to measure the popularity of a party that never wins any seats. You are not allowed to make correlations. --Blacksun 22:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

"As well, political parties during the time of elections had started enticing voters, not only with alcohol, but also with drugs! (This was in Punjab.)." --Institute of Social Sciences, International Development Research Centre, Canada. See report at http://action.web.ca/home/sap/attach/SAP%20W&E%20workshop,%20Bezboruah.doc

Now, let's get one thing straight. If it does not support that Akali Dal (Amritsar) has strength, it also casts serious doubt on whether the other parties in power won legitimately. Electoral politics is not very different in Punjab and U.P. But I think you are no longer questioning this assertion, having seen news reports. Zafarnamah 22:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I dont even accept any assertion that states that election results in UP cannot be considered as legible. This "report" in no way allows you assert that this incidents have a significant impact on the election results. Nor can you assert that these incidents actually hurt Akali Dal (Amritsar) into doing so poorly. I am not going to accept your hypothesis that I have highlighted in bold few paragraphs above. Their are 100000 statements by many respected periodicals, world leaders, etc. that accept Indian democracy and its election results as the mandate of the people. Few incidents in a population of a billion people do not make the entire process ineligible. --Blacksun 22:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is cheating in the electoral process; it is unrealiable. There is no accountability and no one is punished. Just like your friends from the Gurjat pogroms (Modi and Party) are roaming freely. You have to be kidding to tell me that there is transparency in India when it comes to politics. Zafarnamah 22:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your bias is obvious and your not-so-subtle personal attacks are noted. --Blacksun 15:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Culmination point of the movement

Zafarnamah has issue with calling Bluestar the pinnacle of the Khalistan movement. My understanding is that he feels this was more the starting point. I think he is referring to the oft quoted opinion of Bhindranwale that he neither supports/does not support Khalistan, but if the Indian government attacks the Golden Temple, the foundation stone for Khalistan will be layed. From that point of view, you can see how prior to the attack, there was a movement to correct perceived wrongs within India. Afterwards, the more orthodox and extreme sections of the Sikh community believed they could not live in India and in that sense it was precipitated from this point.

What are other peoples opinons on this? If everyone agrees with this, I'll change the introduction to reflect this view. I think it's valid, although may seem a bit odd initially. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, there is no other scholarly opinion on this matter, according to my knowledge. Bhindrawale was not fighting for Khalistan. Zafarnamah 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets dissect this statement

"According to Fareed Zakria, India is highly corrupt in handling electoral politics in which "elections are rigged, [and] ballot boxes are stuffed."[11]. Therefore, electoral politics is not the most reliable indicator of a party's popular support. This indicator is further complicated by the fact that Khalistani Sikhs of Punjab has been known to boycott elections.[12]"

1. "Therefore, electoral politics is not the most reliable indicator of a party's popular support." Oh really? Nope sorry - CITE A STATEMENT WHERE ZAKRIA says that "electoral politics is not the most reliable indicator of a party's popular support."
2. "This indicator is further complicated by the fact that Khalistani Sikhs of Punjab has been known to boycott elections.[12]" Oh really? It is complicated further huh?? Why dont khalistani sikhs vote for parties that want khalistan? How do you explain the voter turn out in Punjab? Please stop making up citations. CITE SOMEONE WHO SAYS STRAIGHT OUT THAT "this indicator is further complicated" instead of making your own analysis. --Blacksun 22:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, feel free to remove Zakria altogether because I have added a direct quote from the Telegraph. To support my second argument, Khalistanis don't recognize the Indian Constitution and, therefore, do not vote during the elections. Please go through Ethnic Conflict in India for an overview of this pheonomenon. I have provided the citation so you can't do much about it. Zafarnamah 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Voter turnout in Punjab during 2004 elections was approximately 56% which is not that much lower than national average and higher than many democratic nations. --Blacksun 22:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are trying to prove that the DISMAL performance of Akali Dal (Amritsar) is because of illegitimate practices of other parties. However, every source you have came up with till now does not support this assertion. You have presented NOTHING that even hints that Akali Dal (Amritsar) would not be so insignificant if their werent incidents of people offering roasted chicken. If people are not voting for Khalistan due to offerings of liquor than maybe Khalistan is not really an issue for them. This all started because you did not want to add the adjective "smaller parties" in front of Akali Dal (amritsar). No matter what yardstick you use the fact is that they ARE smaller parties. If Khalistan was so important, they would havem ore money and be able to offer gold. However, you will not accept the reality and now we are totally offtopic arguing about elections. --Blacksun 22:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, that still does not explain where 44% of the population stands. Unless you have research to explain what agenda these people support, we would be too presumptous to think that these parties that buy votes using alcohol and drugs have popular support. This forum must represent minority voices that you are trying to suppress. It hardly matters whether Akali Dal (Amritsar) even exists; we are discussing the electoral process and the fact that many Khalistanis don't vote, rejecting the Indian Constitution.Zafarnamah 22:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do not know where the other 44% of the population stands. However, their is nothing we can do about it. Ther is no way you can imply anything from that. That is why we should have stuck to the reality and said "some smaller political parties such as Akali Dal (Amritsar) support Khalistan even today" instead of trying to make our own analysis. That is NOT supression of minority view - it is merely stating that this view is in minority. Furthermore, discussion of election process is not relevant to this topic. For every one quote you find that attacks India's election process, I can find 5 that praises it. Heck, at the rate you are going, it seems like we will be bringing up every thing that is wrong in India. --Blacksun 23:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Also ignore the 55% figure. I did some research and voter turn out was 69% in 1997 and 60-62% in 2002. This is a fairly normal figure for any elections, anywhere in the world. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2002/02/14/stories/2002021405130100.htm--Blacksun 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, I have been looking at your track record. You are also one of the editors for the Hinduism entry. When did it become a monotheistic religion and where is the caste-system, it most fundamental aspect? Shouldn't this be in the introduction. From Rg Veda to Manusmriti all make mention of it, advocate it. Or do you omit what suits you? You are a real PR person for India. I will need to join you for a complete overhaul of Hinduism. You say you want minority voices represented. Where is the status of the Dalits in the Hinduism entry? But I digresss. Here, it will suffice to state that according to Ethnic Conflict in India, Khalistanis have boycotted the elections in the past. This gives us a reason to believe that they may still do so today. If such a possibility exists, it would be irresponsible to base all opinions on one indicator, namely the elections. This indicator is further complicated by the fact that Indian politicians are the epitome of corruptness and buy votes for drugs as I have shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Sometimes, the bigger gangsters they are, the better chance they have to do well--as Narendra Modi winning a landslide victory for massacring thousands of Muslims in broad daylight, and the UP example cited by Fareed Zakria. You need not defend this electoral process any further; that would be shameless thing to do. Zafarnamah 02:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, a shameless Khalistani propogandist like you threatening others s ridiculous. So now its Hinduism which offends you and you are attacking BlackSun? By the same standards should Hindus attack Sikhs? Your attitude demonstrates your shameless bigotry,sectarian rabble rousing and by any standards, you are totally unfit to accuse others. Furthermore, Fareed Zakaria is a son of a Congress Minister, now that the UPA is in power, he is praising India. What then? - Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

1. First of all, Hinduism article has nothing to do with this article. All of my editions in that article were merely removing repeats, adding citations to things already present in the article and shortening it as it was for FARC due to its bloated size and lack of citations. I am not a religous scholar and hence made no real additions to the article. Are you asking me to justify the work of others in another article? And how is that meaningful to this article? When I was editing the article it had a reference to the caste system and its abuses. --Blacksun 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

1. You have shown nothing like that beyond a reasonable doubt. If citing any South Asian newspaper showed anything beyond the reasonable doubt then we would be living a very confused life. Nothing is perfect and India is far from it. Their are flaws in the system - sometimes very serious flaws. However, the system has been working fairly well and is regarded as such by the world community. Your opinion on corruption can be applied to almost any leadership in the world. "Epitome of corruptness" is a blanket statement and certainly not encyclopedic. Finally, and something relevant to THIS article is the point that it is not all based on one indicator. I have given strong sources and can get you more that state that Khalistan movement is in coma and normalcy has returned to the Indian state of Punjab for a long time. It is -you- who are trying to use the presence of parties to argue/imply that Khalistan is alive and kicking. When you chose to do so (especially in the lead), it is also your responsibility to state that these parties have performed poorly in elections without doing 2+2 = 4 type of analysis to explain these results to support your point of view. --Blacksun 03:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Their were many wrongs done by Indian government in containing the violent aspects of Khalistan. Instead of focusing on the history of it and various wrongs done by both sides, we are wasting time because you want to set the tone of article to imply that the movement is still going strong.--Blacksun 03:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, please get it. You are dealing with a propoganda campaign here, being mounted by an overt supporter of Khalistan, taking advantage of the academic freedom of speech Wiki and others provide. If you question his comments - out will come the bile on other religions, personal attacks and similar nonsense. - Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

You know for someone who talks a lot on the talk page, I haven't seen you edit the article at all. Why don't you change what you think is wrong and see if it's any better? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Page number needed for Tatla Quote in the Introduction

Please provide the page number for the Tatla quote in the intoduction. I want to look it up to understand the context. Zafarnamah 02:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

page 30, If I remember correctly.

BTW, If you have a problem against straight quote, I dont mind it if you summarize that entire sentence and add the two citations at end of the statement. I havnt seen many straight quotes in wikipedia, unless its from people like Einstein. --Blacksun 04:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

How are these links relevant?

Seriously, I have no problem with you adding links from respected and neutral sites. However, these sites all claim to be official bla bla from random people. 90% of the stuff they write on there would not be accepted as neutral in this article. Some of them even do fund raising. Wikipedia is not an advertisement. None of this self-proclaimed official sites are considered official by any government. --Blacksun 17:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They're relevant to the site as they are organisations working for Khalistan. Whether they are neutral or not is irrelevant. And the bit about being official doesn't matter either - Khalistan isn't recognised by any country. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not relevant. Please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. They clearly state that external links should not be used to promote any organization or sites. They also state that they should be neutral. HOWEVER, in a controversial topic, links with one POV can be added as long as the number of links with that POV do not overwhelm the other POV and that the sites themselves are accurate. Furthermore, the word "official" is also MISLEADING. As, it might not only piss off OTHER organizations that might support Khalistan and not consider THESE people as official but it also misleads the reader into thinking that their is one united official organization. Not to mention that the very fact that they proclaim themselves to be official MAKES THEM INACCURATE and hence, in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. We know nothing about these organizations or how significant they are except that they proclaim to be official. For all we know, they could be scams as they ask for donations too. Heck, any kid with a webpage and something to say can be linked if these sites can be linked. No sir, they are not relevant and in fact, they break wikipedia's guidelines. Notice that I did not delete the sites that say the same things but are sites of political parties and respectable institutions. I don't have problem with content as much as I have problem with linking every pro-khalistan site that may be out there irregardless of their respectability. It clearly breaks wikipedias guidelines of not having too many sites that support one pov in external links and not advertising organizations. --Blacksun 18:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we can come to the agreement that there are no 'official' Khalistan organisations. However, there are prominent organisations that work for Khalistan and they are relevant on this page. All three organisations appear in the first page of Google search for "Khalistan". I certainly don't mind you adding links to anti-Khalistan organisations to balance out any perceived bias, but I won't agree with removing those three links. I agreed with the removal of the other pages, but these three are completely relevant to this topic. If you are adamant that they shouldn't be there, then we can request other members of Wikipedia to give their opinion, going to a RFC if needed. Although hopefully, it won't need to go that far. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

anti-Khalistan organisations? Why would someone bother to have an anti organisation for something that is hardly an issue? And when did google rank became a yardstick for respectability and accuracy (especially when the topic is obscure)? Furthermore, what new information is presented by adding three instead of one of those links that aids the article (except for advertising them)? I don't mind you taking it to RFC. Heck, some of these sites should not be included simply based on their poor quality even if we do not consider anything else. For instance,

1. khalistan.net has nothing under daily news except for a link to another site. It has broken images and pages. It claims to be non-profit but does not provide any evidence in regards to this.
2. Atleast, Khalistan.com looks somewhat respectable and does not claim to be anything that it isn't. However, that site has problems too. Half of the links on its page has nothing to do with khalistan. It is basically a website with links to articles or opinions with negative outlook of India. The fact that it is ranked high on google does not make it a significant organization nor accurate. It does nothing to aid to the value of this article. You might as well make a separate section that says "top 3 sites on google when searched for Khalistan." Not particularly sure how that is encyclopedic but hey. I would suggest that you answer the issues I have raised instead of relying on "high ranked on google" before taking it to RFC. -Blacksun 06:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't mind removing Khalistan.net, but the other two stay. They're the closest thing we have to "official" organisations working for a Khalistan. A lot of the premise for Khalistan is based on Indian inadequacies and human rights abuses, and so any India-bashing comes with the territory. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For now, I can agree to adding Khalistan-affairs.org as the "author" of that site has some credentials. Khalistan.com as I said is simply a compilation of negative articles towards India, with many of them having nothing to do with "khalistan." However, I am not even remotely satisfied that any of the sites add anything worthwhile to the article or in regards to their reliability, stability, accuracy, or significance. I think their are quite a few sites out there from respected media outlets that have accurate commentary of Khalistan which can be added instead of random "fan sites." --Blacksun 15:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask Zafarnamah how prominent "Gurmit Singh Aulakh" is and from that we can determine whether the link stays. I've seen his name mentioned quite a few times and he always seems to be sending letters to the white house... Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Their is nothing on that site except for badly organized links to other news articles with many of them not related to Khalistan. It adds no value to this article. 5/6th of the site is "under construction" and has been like that for months. I dont care if he is Einstein. Incomplete personal homepages have no place in external links. --Blacksun 19:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what "value" a link has to this article!? Yes it's a propoganda site and includes links to "selective articles", but I expect that from a "Council of Khalistan" web site. Indeed, I think the Dal Khalsa and Sikh Federation should be mentioned as organisations working for Khalistan. If you're not prepared to add the links, then I will get feedback from other members. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Who am I? well a wikipedian, who else? And a confident wikipedian that thinks that a site that is mostly under construction and has zero information about the organization has NO PLACE to be linked in an article (much less called "self-styled government in exile"). Where did you get that "self-styled government in exile" information anyways mr. Sukh? Definitely not from that site as it has no information. If *that* site is ok then every half-assed personal homepage out there can be linked. That site is ALMOST emplty! I dont even have a problem with its content. It is just a friggin stupid site to link to and common sense tells me that. --Blacksun 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you it's a crappy site - but that's not the point. It's the official site for a pro-Khalistan organisation. And no, "self-styled government in exile," or variants thereof, are used in these two articles: [2], [3]. If you still can't agree to add it, then that's fine provided the other three links are kept. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 09:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick reading those links did not give me any "official government in exile" support. Besides, first link seems to indicate that many of the letters of support that might be put on that site were gotten in a devious manner and really questions the credibility of its president. Another reason not to link to it. --Blacksun 15:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason you wouldn't get an "official government in exile" is because there is no such thing. That's why it is a self-styled government in exile. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy on external linking. - FrancisTyers 04:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent developments

I will trust you to neutralize the tone of this section further. Their are many "recent developments" that sooth the feelings of many Sikhs. For instance, the Indian government apologized for many of the actions of 1984 for the first time during the past few years. This section, like the lead, should definitely inform the reader that normalcy has returned to the state. --Blacksun 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ibids

I think as we go through the article, we should remove all ibids and replace them with full references. It prevents confusion and distortion if we move bits of text around. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is one long rant on why alleged Hindu "persecution" is responsible for Khalistan

Firstly "Hindu Marriage Act" dosnt mean that Indian govt. considers Sikhs as Hindus. Its just a name. Secondly this article doesnt mention the vicious anti-Hindu propoganda propogated in 1950's and 1960's by some Sikh leaders and also of selective ethnic cleansing of Punjabi Hindus from bordering districts like Amritsar and Gurudaspur. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well most of the griviences have nothing to do with Sikhs. Punjabis and Sikhs are two different terms and not interchangable. As for sharing of water its rather same story with every Indian state. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 18:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

That's looking at the situation very simply. I'm trying not to generalise, but it's well known that Sikhs indentified more with the Punjabi identity than Hindus did, and there was a constant effort by both Orthodox Sikhs and right-wing Hindus to split the two groups apart. From that position, the wish for a Punjabi Suba was a wish for a Sikh-majority state masked as a Punjabi-speaking state. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, sharing of water thing is used in a very devious way in this article. For instance, they have a citation to some environmental agency saying Punjab water levels are falling by 1 meter every year. If you go to that site, you see that it is not only Punjab but also scores of other states like Haryana, Rajasthan, etc. However, the way it is used it creates an impression that Haryana is stealing and exploiting Punjab and that is why its water levels are dropping. The entire article is slanted with major violations of wikipedial POV guidelines. However, I am not going to bother with all that - not enough energy. --Blacksun 19:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"They"? Well it'd be best if we work on points such as that, instead of arguing over external links. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

And incredibly this article glosses over the excesses on the Khalistani side. Actually this article reads like Akali Dal whitepaper they published in 1997. Air-India bombings are not mentioned so are killings of moderate Sikhs and Hindus glossed over. Having lived in Paddington-Southall area, i quite know that bulk of support for this movement comes from Britain and Canada, yet ths article gives an impression that this movement is pretty active in India. Wikipedia these days has been hijacked by chauvanists or all hues and colours. And this article is no exception.

File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 21:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (See my article http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/395 )

What you say is true (indeed, the Khalistan cause is only prominent with the very orthodox Sikhs in the west, and they certainly don't comprise any sort of majority). But the problem is getting reliable statistics that "measure" this level of support. Nothing written in the article is wrong, per se, but it has its own slant and is not representative of all views. There has been increasing discussion over the last few weeks which should hopefully help in cleaning it up. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Akash's Comments from the Archives

Akash listed some comments on the archives which I have removed and placed below. Please do not edit the archives, if you want to bring a topic up, relist it on the talk page. For the context within which each message was made, see [4]. Akash, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To call the propoganda you are indulging in as good scholarship is ridiculous. I have seen Al Q videos in the net with a more "balanced perspective" than your comments- Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

I am full willing to do that. Are you then willing to let the article serve as a battleground? As regards facts- and Wikipedia's intentions, all very laudable - but what it boils down to is- who ensures that in the guise of facts, its not merely a tool for more propoganda?

The bygones comment was definitely intended to serve as a fair announcement of dredging up painful memories. And the assorted dangers when more Khalistanis come in and this escalates into a typical adolescent flame war.- Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

As long as you have reliable references (published work, establish web sites etc) then it shouldn't be a problem. Nobody 'ensures' anything - if the article gets really bad and people keep reverting, there are measures that can be taken. But we're not at that stage yet. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I did post a lot on the article. It was edited moments later and I didnt have a backup copy. My basic point is this: the size matters, so does the thrust and succintness. There are many books out there in Arabic pointing out to the legitimacy of what OBL has done. If I were to sit around and rank them and cite them on an article on 9/11- where does the article end up then? It will act as a battleground. I am merely pointing out that there has to be some sanity in this. Ican rebut all the agit-prop, to have someone come in and wipe it out. And so on and so forth. IOW, this is essentially pointless, since the person pushing for the article,to call a spade a spade (not you) is quite overt in his support for a Khalistan movement and wants to support it via WikiP. And the net being what it is, this might end up becoming even more of a mess.- Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia keeps a history of all edits so your edits are still backed up. Go to the Khalistan article and press the History button which should give you details. As you haven't got a Wikipedia account and you use IP addresses it may be difficult to track down. When did you edit it approximately?

If you can edit it again, I will ensure that any references facts aren't removed without discussion (and only then with a valid consensus). If you get yourself a Wikipedia account, it's much easier to track what you are doing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I searched and its not there (went IP by IP). However, my point about lending legitimacy to this entire "Khalistan effort" remains.

Ah, Vik Singhji- what an impeccable grasp of facts. Ribeiro a Hindu? ROTFL- he's a Christian! 1984 "holocaust"- oh my. And the Punjab Police was reformed in part by KPS Gill- a SIkh. And still staffed hugely with Sikhs. Sikh policemen did break the Khalistan movement, as supported by others- but denying it is ridiculous.- Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

Comments by AMbroodEY

Sukh, i appreciate your efforts but this article is still more of a propoganda leaflet than any thing else. I have it on my watch list but i wont be able to make this article encyclopedic as Khalistan and Sikh politics are not my areas of interest. But still i have access to lots o books on Punjabi crisis i may help from time to time. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 10:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts and look forward to any of your contributions! When I get time, I'm going to look at the points raised in Archive 4 and see if I can do anything about them. But I'm short on time to research this at the moment. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What this article should be

I think the current lead gives an ok template of what the rest of the article should be:

• Talk about facts of the conflict - as in official count of people who died + unofficial estimate range
• Talk about various human right abuses charges against the army.
• Talk about various human right abuses chargest against the militants. Dont try to whitewash this as wishywashy conspiracy propogated by the army.
• Talk about when and why the conflict lost its popularity. Dedicate a few lines on how some minor organizations both in Punjab and abroad are still pursuing it. Mention the apology made by the current govt. led by a Sikh prime minister but also mention that not many people in positions have been charged for the 84 riots.

In short keep it encyclopedic and do not make it emotional. It should not be that hard in theory but well... --Blacksun 21:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But I will have difficulty in contributing a lot over the coming two months. After that, I have time to devote many hours to this article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

editions

Had deleted few editions which I felt do not substentiate and are not factual. Later relised that this page was refered to talk page. I admit a mistake has been made on my part and if someone wants to re-add the deletion, I would accept them and further discuss this page to make it more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neomav (talk • contribs) 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! I'm glad you have come to the talk page, and please feel free to join in with the discussion we've been having.

Unfortunately, you've removed a lot of text without discussing prior to removing it, or showing what is specifically wrong with the pieces you've removed. I can definately see why you have removed certain sections, but for other points it's not so clear. Please discuss what's wrong with the sections before removing them. Thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 23:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have read the complete article again and definitely it needs lot of work. Then again the nature of this article is such that it would have conflicting views. To reach a consensus and to have these conflicting views presented with fairness would require patience and fact based research. May be the best possible way is to give a proper structure to this article and improve on it. I would in good faith make few edits and try and engage with other editors to improve it with consensus and logic. Hopefully this article would come out its shamble state. (Neomav 19:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

Indian Army

There is no reference anywhere on this page to the fact that Sikhs made up approximately 30% of the troops of the Indian Army in the British period, and thus played a crucial role in sustaining the Raj. Many historians feel that this was important in sustaining and entrenching a sense of separate Sikh identity after the demise of Ranjit Singh's state. It is certainly more important than notional 'percentages' of Sikhs contributing to the Freedom movement (so, there were people counting the numbers on demonstrations were there)? There is also no reference to the fact that Punjab was governed by the loyalist Punjab Unionist Party, which included and represented Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, until 1946. Until that date a common Punjabi identity was more important than religious sectarianism, until it was tragically shattered by Partition. I'm not going to comment on more contemporary political issues, but historically this article stinks. I suggest contributors read:

M. Imran Ali The Punjab under Imperialism 1885-1947 (Princeton University Press) 1988

Rajit K. Mazumder The Indian Army and the making of Punjab (Delhi: Permanent Black) 2003

Sir Penderel Moon Divide and Quit (Delhi: OUP) 2002 (1961)

Ian Talbot: Punjab and the Raj 1849-1947 (Delhi: Manohar) 1988

Ian Talbot Khizr Tiwana, The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India (Karachi: OUP) 2002

Sikandarji 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I had to delete the text that talked about the "attack" on the Golden Temple along with 37 Gurudwaras (Any more concrete sources available? It's the first I'm hearing of this), reason being that the article opens by giving the impression that the operation was unprovoked and random. It doesn't provide any information as to the background of the situation, especially concerning the actions of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale inside the Golden Temple. This article still needs vigorous NPOV'ing - I'm limited on time and so I will do what I can. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 11:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Book Verification

This article is heavily quoted from the book mentioned below. I have tried to Google it with no results. Is this a genuine book and may be someone can confirm authenticity of the author and his works.

Singh, Iqbal, Punjab Under Siege: A Critical Analysis, New York: Allen, McMillan and Enderson, 1986, p. 33

Thanks (Neomav 20:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC))

I have checked the catalogues for the Bodleian Library in Oxford and the British Library, and it doesn't come up on either. This suggests that either it does not exist, or else it is not a reputable work. It certainly is not a reliable source for this article. Sikandarji 10:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I have managed to find it in the Library of Congress [5] with ISBN 0934839042 and ISBN 0934839034. If it was published in the US, there is no requirement for it to be in the British Library. As it's so difficult to find, we should ask the author (not of the book, but who wrote the points in question) to give extended quotes from the book. If not, I vote remove the points in question. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost all books published in the U.S. do make it to the Bodleian and the BL though, if they are worth reading. If the Indian Institute Library in Oxford doesn't have it then there must be something odd about it. Sikandarji 18:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS ANOTHER Fake/Unreliable source, this book is not good enough to be considered a reliable source, so all the text with this book as the source should be removed or a reliable source should be presented.

220.227.152.109 18:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [ Linguistic issues cause civil unrest in Punjab]

What is meant by Punjabi state out of Punjab? This statement itself gives away the hidden agenda of the people fighting for it. Can we have an English state by dividing England, or an Indian state by dividing India? India means Indian state and Punjab means Punjabi state!!

The quote from the case presented to state reorganization committee says

"Punjabi-speaking province may give the Sikhs the needful security"

Doesn't it make clear the TRUE reason for partitioning Punjab once again (after partitioning it among Muslims and non-Muslims).

This partitioning of Punjab was intended for creating a Sikh majority state (or homeland), although initially it was to be within Indian union of states.

Nsdeonia 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)nsdeonia

NPOV dispute [ Many Hindus of Punjab reject Punjabi as their native language]

Some Sikh leaders were trying to get a Sikh majority state under the false name of Punjabi state. Therefore, some Hindu leaders told Hindus to vote for Hindi as their mother tongue. This way Hindu majority areas become part of new states (Himachal and Haryana). While a Sikh majority (60% at that time), land became new Punjab.

This section mentions that Punjabi is not given high status because Sikhs speaks it is very ridiculous argument.

This section also quotes Hukam Singh of the Akali Dal “While others got States for their languages, we lost even our language."

Yes, we lost our language because we tried to create a Punjabi state out of Punjab, which is most stupid idea.

Nsdeonia 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)nsdeonia

Moved page

I have moved the Khalistan page to Khalistan movement. The state of Khalistan never existed, it was a movement. I have also nominated it for WP:INCOTW. Kindly make your votes, if interested. Regards, --Andy123(talk) 17:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the move because it was not discussed on this page prior to being moved. The article makes it clear that Khalistan does not exist as an independent state and the first line says:

"Khalistan is the name given to the proposed nation-state, encompassing the present Indian state of Punjab and all Punjabi-speaking areas contiguous to its borders, the creation of which has been violently agitated for by separatist organisations. "

I don't see any advantage in moving everything to Khalistan movement, because there would still need to be a place to write about Khalistan as a proposed state. So then we would have both a Khalistan page and a Khalistan movement page. I don't think it is necessary at the moment. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh are you from pakistan?, please confirm that if ur a pakistani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.152.109 (talk • contribs)

Er, frankly I don't think that's any of your business. And no, I'm not. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I will have to disagree with u , khalistan DOES NOT EXIST, so there is no point of haveing this article as an article for a nation,I will soon move this page toKhalistan movement,please explain to me why we should not sconsider khalisatn as movement, if we should consider it as a nation , then what is its capital, currency,etc etc, u have no answer to those, so pleeeeeez cooperate and allow move this article to its rightful place in wikipedia

220.227.152.109 18:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I proposed the move on the INCOTW page, didn't know it would create so much controversy. Talk about making a mountain out of a moehill, anyway, point is Khalistan never existed and for factual accuracy this is about the Khalistan Movement. If the page were about Khalistan it would be about the economy of Khalistan, demographics, people, culture etc. Like any other page for a state or nation. Didn't mean to create controversy. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, everything on this page causes a controversy. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh, there is a huge reason why this article should be moved to "Khalistan Movement", please dont act like you dont understand what we are trying to explain,if you disagree with us then explain to us why it should not be considered a movement, everything on this article causes controversy because of YOU and zafarnamah,99% of this article's content is about the movement and how it lost its popularity.Stop being stubborn and explain the reason why we shoud not move this to "khalistan movement", and if you care about wikipedia then dont delay all this as you have done it past.220.227.152.109 11:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not against a "Khalistan movement" page as such. But it shouldn't mean the removal or redirection of this page. If you have a look at List of active autonomist and secessionist movements you will see how "proposed" states and movements are listed under the country name (for example Volkstaat and Bangabhumi). The article clearly says that Khalistan is not a state. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Crap, you have failed to make a point, tell me WHAT IS KHALISTAN ?220.227.152.109 12:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Khalistan is a *proposed* state comprising the Indian state of Punjab and adjoining Punjabi-speaking areas. What else do you want me to tell you? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Many people proposes many things, is all that going to end up as wiki article, Khlistan WAS a movement, it has lost all its support, so it should be treated as a movement, rather than treating it as a nation, or even proposed nation. Khalistan is the name , NAME for a Nation. And that nation does not exist. So all we have is history , a MOVEMNT for A Nation KNOWN AS KHALISTAN. Is it so hard to understand. Anirudhsbh & Nobleeagle have made a fine point, why is that you have no reply to their question, because there is no way you can contradict them, stop wasting our time, stop your policy of delaying what should have happened and try to stop adding controversy to this article220.227.152.109 12:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to reply to any further messages you have on this issue because frankly I think you're trolling. Neither Anirudhsbh nor Nobleeagle asked a question. You need to distinguish between a statement (normally ending in a full stop or period) and a question (normally ending in a question mark). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to discuss, then wikipedia is not going to stop for you, you have been unable to explain why it should not be moved , and there have been three people who think that this article should be moved. Calling me a troll is a false accusation, looking at how much you have *contributed* to this page, so that make s you even bigger troll than me. I have no interest in talking to you either. You had a chance to discuss this matter peacefully and you passed on to it. IM moving this page to "khalistan movement", If you are going to start a revert war then i thing we will require mediation and or poll, Its your choice.220.227.152.109 13:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

SUKH + ZAFRANAMAH = WIKI CARTEL

Why such headline , because i have dealt with them before .And i have been regularly monitoring what is happening on this page.Many before me have dealt with them. And all of us have a life unlike Sukh and Zafarnamah so most of us gave up on to improve this article.This article has become a mouth piece for organisation who have long lost their popularity.Many of these organisations have been banned by EU,NATO&US. What took me a lot of time to understand was the fact that SUKH and Zafarnamah are fooling us, Sukh pretends to be the guy who is neutral but he is not he is always trying strengthen the point made by Zafarnamah, and still makes himself look like neutral, and Zafarnamah as we all know is on the extremists side.When it comes to Zafarnamah he is always trying make this whole article to be one sided. ALL THOSE WHO ARE PLANING TO MAKE THIS ARTICLE BETTER, I HAVE AN ADVICE , DO NOT BELIEVE SUKH IS AT UR SIDE, SUKH IS JUST A MORE REASONABLE SIDE TO ZAFARNAMAH, THEY CARE CONNECTED. It is their strategy to make one look at your side while other is against you. Who ever has raised the issue of this article not up to the standards of wikipedia got a line over used (i guess for about one year again and again)"Earlier, this article was twice the size and we have made significant progress", both Sukh and Zafarnamah have used this line, but is it me that this article seems to me tooo big/HUGE, unreadable, with POV every where.

This article has only one solution , we should raise our voice to RESTART IT< REWRITE IT FROM GROUND UP.

Im totally sick of how Sukh and Zafarnamah uses indivisual's opionion as the sources(total 86). So IMO we should only use Indian Gov, United Nations, journalists, academic researchers, politician(of LEGAL parties) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.152.109 (talk • contribs)

OMG Sukh is a Pakistani, OMG OMG OMG, now i get it why he has so much venom for india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.152.109 (talk • contribs)

Damn, you got me. I am a member of the ISI whose sole aim is to destablise India with the creation of Khalistan. You are so clever, if it weren't for you, our plot would have succeeded! (This is sarcasm by the way.) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm is not going to change where you live, if you are not from pakistan then where the hell are you from ?

It is irrelevant where he lives as far as his ability to contribute to wikipedia is concerned. You need to a) learn to sign your comments b) learn to debate without being petty. --Blacksun 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

People like you are the reason why there is soooooo much negative news about wikipedia, people like you are the reason why there is lack of factual accuracy in articles like khalistan, people like you are the reason there is controversy, people like you are using wikipedia as their mouthpice for their seperatist beliefs.220.227.152.109 11:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's any of your business where I am from, nor do I think it's relevant to this article. You're entitled to your opinion of me. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)