Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 6

From May 2006 to July 2006

Recent 'move'

If as an anonymous user, you wish to move a page, you must request it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You should under NO CIRCUMSTANCES merely copy and paste text into a new article. This results in a loss of history and is completely inappropriate. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Page Moved

" I have moved "khalistan" to "khalistan movement", Sukh is the only person who is against this i have tried to discuss this with him, but he does not seem to be interested. He has been unable to explain why an article with much of its content dealing with the movement should not be considered as a movement.If we are going to consider it as a state or a country then there should be information regarding economy of Khalistan, demographics, people, culture and currency.As no such thing exists there is no reason why it should be moved to "khalistan movement".Those who disagree with me ,Nobleeagle and Andy123, they should DISCUSS this matter before starting a revert war.220.227.152.109 13:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you've now been banned for 48 hours. If you're ready to discuss this properly, without making personal attacks and by following due process, you're more than welcome to come back. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The page move by me was justified as the state of Khalistan does not have any existence. This view is supported by Nobleeagle. The Khalistan movement existed and does not exist now, and neither the proposal to make the state is in existence now. If you insist, we might be able to start a straw poll here to decide which page does this article belong to. Thanks and regards, --Andy123(talk) 17:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify my point: I'm not against having a Khalistan movement page which uses most of the text on this article. However, if such a page is made, this page should STILL remain. In such a case, this page would include details of the proposed state, regardless of how many people support the formation of Khalistan.

I don't believe it at all necessary to distinguish (by having two articles) between the movement and the proposed state because they are so closely linked. And to suggest that the article does not make it abundantly clear that Khalistan does not exist is pretty absurd.

Other proposed states are listed under one page (e.g. Volkstaat and Bangabhumi). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nichalp's opinion

I've been requested to have a look at this festering dispute. I don't agree with both sides completely and I have a different solution. Please evaluate it carefully. I say this through my experience dealing with geographical entities.

• My understanding of Khalistan is that it is a geographic entity – a (proposed) region with borders. (-sthan = place)

1. Under this presumption the article should deal with the geography, people and history. See List of unrecognized countries and try and model Khalistan on those lines.
2. Details of the movement should be moved to "Khalistan movement" as it deals exclusively with it. The same should be summarised and added under the =History= section to this page with a {{main article}} pointing to the Khalistan movement page.
3. The movement is in a mess. Those quotes should be moved to q:wikiquote.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your contention, Sukh. We should have a go ahead with Nichalp's suggestion. --Andy123(talk) 19:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your suggestion to use "List of unrecognized countries" as a model for Khalistan. In that list all the countries are ones with some type of control over their territory. Khalistan does not even come close to falling under this criteria. Their should be only one article on Khalistan Movement and no article on Khalistan. --Blacksun 19:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Blacksun here - we shouldn't completely model the article on a list of such "countries" (in fact, proposed states on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements appear to be the type of thing we're aiming for). However, I still feel that Nichalp is correct when he says the Khalistan article should deal with the geography, people and history of the area. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I again disagree. As far as I know their has never been a territory known as Khalistan. The regions that might fall under the proposed region of Khalistan already have their own articles. Their could be a geography section in the Khalistan movement that deals with this but to make a separate article entirely on this would be surely confusing. --Blacksun 05:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The territory known as Khalistan may have never existed on the ground, but it's undeniable that there are finite boundaries (linguistic) to the geographical area. Physical existance or not, we have to document the linguistic area in a neutral manner. Secondly, Khalistan is unrecognised, so are come of these countries I've listed. The difference between the two are the control over these territories. Please do not take it literally, I've given you some articles to have a look at based on the History, Geography and Culture (linguistic and religious culture) to author the Khalistan page. Only the political aspect needs to be appropriately modified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed split. Perhaps it might be more effective to move this article to Khalistan movement and build a geographic article from scratch on this namespace? A map might be nice. The Tom 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is there to say on Khalistan, apart from the movement?? We already have History of Punjab and Punjabi people and Punjabi language and Sikhism and ..... we could always add a map to this page. If I remember right, the Dream encompassed Bihar and Maharashtra, on the premise of Nanded and Patna Sahib being located there. Please make a map (or several, if you wish) and add them. ImpuMozhi 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Khalistan article: The boundaries of Khalistan include the present Indian state of Punjab and all Punjabi-speaking areas contiguous to its borders. Punjab as a region includes Punjab, Haryana, Pakistan & Indian Punjab and parts of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan. In order of size it would be something like: Punjab > Khalistan > Punjab (Indian state) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a good example of how a non-issue blows up to something requiring admin intervention. I don't believe we should have a seperate Khalistan page and Khalistan Movement (although it did cross my mind yesterday), because a page for Khalistan that has limited details on the actual movement won't expand to a large size without just being another version of Punjab. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

My friend, Nobleeagle, I dont think it is wrong in any way to ask for administrator intervention as it helps in solving out the matter, rather easily. In this particular case, I did not invite Nichalp to mediate because he was an administrator, but for his comments as an experienced contributor. Wikipedia runs on verifiability backed consensus, so inviting other users is not a wrong thing to do. I, initially made the page move because I reckoned that most of the contents of this page belonged to the other. I think we should have two pages, one for Khalistan as a state which *was* proposed and the Khalistan movement. --Andy123(talk) 10:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If despite having an article on Hinduism , we can have another on Hindutva-which is not a known religion or way of life. I think there can be a page on Khalistan as the movement for it caused a huge amount of pain to India as well as Punjab. And Khalistan did look at contigous areas outside Punjab. It is not to endorse the movement, or give it support, but ignoring it will not change history and it should have a page. Haphar 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad I can't remember the policy template but in Wikipedia you do not justify one thing with another bad example. --Blacksun 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Andy, it makes little sense as Khalistan movement is going to have most of the stuff that you would right in the Khalistan state that was proposed. LALALA I am out of this discussion - must stay away from Khalistan the blackhole that sucks all your time and gives nothing. --Blacksun 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Too bad that a person fighting for removing/renaming one article does not do so on the other quoted, even if it is agreed to be a bad one. The point is that for one point of view Khalistan may be seen as a bad idea for an article, that does not neccecarily make the idea bad, it's just a point of view. Haphar 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well you can't really compare Hinduism and Hindutva with Khalistan and Khalistan Movement, Hindutva is more a political ideology, it's very much based on current affairs relating to Hindus. But that's another topic. I don't honestly care what happens, it was an innocent proposition that I made and I haven't got my heart into it like some other anon users. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have kept myself away from this discussion for very long as I have little knowledge of the struggle. But I spent a lot of time on google today... So I thought I must add my two-pence. In the entire debate above, I could not see any mention of WP:V. (Pardon me for not having looked through the archives.) The only reliable source on the topic that I could find was this. And it only talks about a Khalistan movement. No other reliable source talks about Khalistan as a place. Of course, this is only my limited research. I once again claim ignorance on the subject itself. Thanks -- Lost 14:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: Here's another (looks neutral) link that I found on pg 7 of the google search: [1]. This also talks only about the movement -- Lost 14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Slightly-off topic!

I know this is off-topic, but I'm currently on the list for requests for adminship (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sukh) and I think people on this talk page might be interested in adding their comments (especially in light of the problems with this article and further discussion). If you support or oppose me, please do add your comments on the RfA page. Many thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify I'm not here to garner support. I just felt that most (personal) opposition to me becoming an admin is likely to come from this page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right Sukh. We wikipedians have very long memomory, and we do not foreget anything. --Bhadani 16:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My two pence

As suggested by Andy123, I came to this page to read earlier discussion, and to present my comments and views. I partly read the discussion, and find myself unable to offer comments. In fact, we have a system here (I mean in wikipedia) of arriving at a consensus, sometimes at the cost of truth! This system is really strange and most unencyclopedic in approach. As such, I am afraod that I shall not able to contribute anything to the discussion – at least now, may be after one more year of being around – in the third year of my wiki-life, I may be able to understand the “nitty-gritty” of such unusual policies and procedures, and shall find myself really equipped to offer cooments and suggestions. In any case, I find that after a page attains a semblance of encyclopedic content, its “demise” starts in many cases. --Bhadani 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

:). I will devote much more time to this article when my exams are over (er, I should be revising now!). I've ordered some books to read which should no doubt help! I hope Blacksun isn't disillusioned because his feedback was constructive and with further input from Wikipedians we could make this into a good article. People just need to remember that there's two sides to every story, and the fact that the media were banned in Punjab does not make it any easier. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(:)I totally agree with right frame of mind this article can be improved as well as I believe 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 also request other contributor’s o refrain from making personal remarks, which is against spirit of the wikipedia and its concept.

Thanks (Neomav 21:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC))

Ip address and anmol.2k4

I am writing this as a reply to the accusation made by user:sukh. Sukh has accused me of attacking him personally as i had earlier suggested that 220.227.152.109 is my ip address, I'm a student at an institute with ~1500 kids like me, all of us have our individual computers but we share two ip addresses (220.227.152.109 &there is one more), i was shocked by sukh's allegations but after going through the talk page i found what he was talking about, what i believe may have happen is that a student from bba batch may have posted that / may have been involved in a discussion with sukh on the khalistan page, as our bba course is accredited by punjab technical university and they have a subject "punjab history and culture, that may have got one our juniors interested in this article. I will further reply to queries related to this incident once my semesters exams are over (that is after 4 days).Anmol.2k4 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

i would also like to add that i have just saw a news about a sms which is being circulated between people in punjab that sms contains provoking text asking people of punjab to find new bhindrawale. And i also think that the people demanding independent state "khalistan" they have a very different flag, so one should change it with the one in this article. Anmol.2k4 21:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please give details of this new flag. Are you sure it was a specific Khalistan flag and not just a 'Sikh flag'?

I've pasted my comments from the adminship page below:

Frankly, that IP address may be an institute address but I'm not sure I believe it. Your writing style suggests that it was you who wrote those comments. Lines such as "because i have dealt with them before" suggest that you are infact the same person. In addition, I have not seen any edits by 220.227.152.109 that do not correspond with your interests. I don't accuse people of things without sufficient cause to do so. Please don't take me for a fool. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well i cannot change who you are and what opinion you have formed up for me, as far as the ip address is concerned i have mentioned that we have two ip addresses and that person may have had an account, but as i said i cannot change who you are and i simply do not care if you believe me or not as far as institute is concerned , many from our institute have contribute to the institute's article in wikipedia, and you will find that the same ip address has been used for editing, if you would like to confirm if i am in such an institute then i am ready to provide you my cell no. and address of our institute you can visit the campus and then we can meet face to face. Our campus is in NCR so if you are in Delhi or in NCR you can visit the place. If you still think im making all this up then i cannot help and now i simply don't care.

As far the flag is concerned i saw that news report about a person who think he had written the khalistan's constitution and for many years he was in exile, last year he came back to india. News correspondent were able to track him down and they found a flag of khalistan on his residence's roof. I don't remember his name but i remember he is a doctor . The flag he had was very different from what you have made, i will visit the news channel's site to look for his story and if we are luck we might get a glimpse of the flag.Anmol.2k4 11:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be glad if you can look out for the flag.

"http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=280490&archisec=REG&archisubsec=" this confirms what i was talking about, but the page don't have the flag and i don't remember how it looked like as it has been almost a month since i watched that story on zee news and i was involved in my exams so i was not able to quickly post that information here. It was kinda with some dark colours, and had the mark in you version of the flag. Anmol.2k4 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think you're fooling anyone into thinking that those comments weren't made by you. As I've said, the contributions made by that IP address and your username perfectly match your contributions. Also, in an institute of 1,500 people I find it difficult to believe that nobody else has added to articles different from you using that IP address. Especially considering you said everyone has their own computer and there are only two IP addresses.

Finally, you have removed the comment "how i know so much about bimtech, coz i applied for it and had gd pi, visited with one of my friend who is doing mib there,there are lots of alumnai blogs and newspapers and magzines articles on it so one can verify all i hav written" from Talk:BIMTECH. Which suggests you don't actually go there.

I don't care about your personal attacks (and I'm willing to forget you even said anything). If you just admit it (and stop being a coward), we can get on with sorting out this article. As I've said previously - don't take me for a fool. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not willing to forget this matter, if you would like i will give you the telephone number of our institute and you can get in touch with them and you will see if i actually study there or not. And now i would like to tke this matter to an admin i you would like that as you have started personal attacks on me for some other guy's edits, and your actions show hoe immatutre you really are and further proves that how emottinal you are on such issues. I WILL PROVIDE TELE. NUMBER AND YOU CAN GET IN TOUCH WITH OUR ADMISSION OFFICE AND YOU CAN CONFIRM IF A PERSON I STUDYING THERE WITH MY USER ID. Anmol.2k4 11:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And as far as gdpi is concerned then tell me who don't have to go through the selection process ?Anmol.2k4 11:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just before I discontinue with this conversation for good, please take a look at: [2] and [3]. In this situation, Anmol.2k4 has personally attacked another user: "read this you dumb #ss." and "you |)UMB *ass". All this seems way too coincidental to me and it's as if someone is trying to hide their past indiscretions. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

He was an anonymous bastard , BIMTECH phone number : +91 9811817819, call the person and ask info about me and i hope it will satisfy needs of your over-imaginative brain. If you want to end this matter, and you have enough guts to stand by your accusations then call the mobile number above or stop making false accusations. If you think i will admit to some other guys wrong doing then you are out of your mind. STOP MAKING FALSE ACCUSATION , YOU HAVE THE NUMBER OF THE INSTITUTE THEN WHAT IS STOPPING YOU TO CONFIRM IF THE IP IS SHARED BY STUDENTS, IF I STUDY THERE OR NOT.Anmol.2k4 14:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Due to the recent argument, false accusation & hostile nature of few wikipedians toward me i think it will be very difficult for me to coexist in such community, and im scared if i will stay he more such people may continue to bully me in future, i past whenever i made mistakes i always apologised for those and continued to contribute to the wikipedia. But i am not one of those people who apologise for others mistake. In the discussion above one can see that i gave away a lot of my personal information to prove that im behind NAT and share ip address with other students in our institute in fact i have also provided telephone number to our institute so that the community can confirm that i study there or not, is the ip address used by anonymous user to attack sukh is being used by the institute. But i don't think it is of any use as this argument has got too ugly and gone too far, therefore i have come to a decision that this will be my last contribution to the wikipedia.Anmol.2k4 12:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't originally going to reply to this thread anymore, but because of this comment I will.

It's disappointing that this incident has led you to want to leave Wikipedia. Please don't think that's what I want - I value the additions and comments you've made in the past. I strongly urge you to reconsider.

In regards to the accusations I will say this: I am willing to forgive and forget no matter who it was. But you must understand that the overwhelming weight of evidence points to you (and your personal attacks to other users under the Anmol username in no way helped your case). There is no way you can prove it wasn't you (giving me a mobile number doesn't help; getting the esablishments number from their web site would be better and even then there would be privacy implications into giving out information), but at the same time there isn't an easy way I can prove it was you who wrote the comments (aside from linking IP address). Either way, I don't think we will be able to solve this so it's best we get on with our work here because this is achieving nothing. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Akash's comments regarding "let's dissect this statement"

I've moved this comment down here because I don't wish to resurrect the old discussion because I will be archiving the page shortly. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The same may be said of you. For the record- I did edit a lot of text and put citations in as noted earlier. One of the pro Khalistani gents removed it within minutes. Since I did not have a saved file to re-edit - I let it slide. But that is not really relevant. The point was thus, Wikipedia is being used by agenda peddlers of the Khalistan movement to do their bit, and of course, we should agree with it, give their efforts legitimacy and persist in a dash to the bottom by editing and re-editing. Please take a look at Zaffarnamahs comments above - the bigotry is rather open- especially when he makes comments on BlackSun having edited the Hindu religion page (which of course has to be polytheist per the usual Khalistani line) and of BlacSun being a Modi supporter, plus the allusions to Gujarat. The facts of course, that none here have attacked the Sikh faith (and btw, Hinduism per original tenets is Monotheistic, the Almighty can be worshipped in the form of various roopas) nor have we condoned any attacks on the same are irrelevant. Many Indians draw a distinction between the religion and the actions of terrorists acting in its name and attempting to use its sacred tenets as an excuse for their depravity. Meanwhile, we have verbose discussions on "Khalistan"- a movement which caused the deaths of thousands of Indians, not Sikhs and Hindus. Of course, my polite attempts to point out the fact have gone unheeded- meanwhile lets all continue encouraging Khalistanis here to paint a lurid picture of the events past, and then continue to edit and re-edit and engage in spirited battles over the same. Frankly- did you people even experience what the Khalistan movement wreaked in India? The sheer thuggery it was built on? If you had- you would then realize why I said, "best left in the past".India has moved on, but non resident proponents of Khalistan cannot, and hence we have to remain hostage to hate and religious and sectarian bigotry, despite the best attempts of many to move on and live our lives. But please,lets go ahead and encourage Zafarnamah and lend legitimacy to his efforts, by seeing that this page remains and we all edit and re-edit. Yes, that may not be your intention, but thats what, all this, is resulting in. Wikipedia should *remove* that entire tome of hate speech and merely put a couple of lines on Khalistan, instead of acting as a sounding board for "the cause". - Akash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.180.77 (talk • contribs)

The history does not disappear. If you give me the approximate date that you added the information, I will look through the history and see if I can retrieve it. It has definately not vanished! If you were using the current IP address, please say so because that'll make it even easier to find.

I definately understand the pain and trouble North India went through at the time (well as far as I can for someone who wasn't there!). I have no intention of opening old wounds - but this is an encylopedia and every topic must be covered. Khalistan is an issue that must be covered in depth and accurately; it cannot be "left in the past". Evidentally it's not there yet, but we're working on bringing up to scratch.

As I've said, in a few weeks time I will have some literature and more importantly more free time to devote to this article, I will look back at the article and note comments made by you, Anmol and Blacksun to see what I can change. But I assure you, this will not merely be a couple of lines. In the eyes of the Indian people, it may be best that this is forgotten - but that's not the aim of Wikipedia. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Got a jolt on seeing the section heading. Then realised that there could be more than 1 in this world :)!! - Aksi_great (talk) 11:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The surest way of ensuring that another Punjab problem happens is to ignore the issue and drop and recording of what caused under the guise of "let us not rake up the past and let us allow wounds to heal". Issues ignored lead to flare ups ( sometimes cenuries later as the Balkans showed).The same comment is used for the 1984 Delhi riots, It should not be whitewashed and should be recorded in history.Haphar 19:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

External links again

Please, dont use the word official in front of everything. It is like me linking to an article and saying "Official site of Blacksun" for my homepage. What is the point of saying official? Its a pretty silly ploy of making it sound significant and relevant. Also, once again I have removed links to questionable low quality sites. If you are interested in reading the specific reasonings dig in to the history. --Blacksun 21:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal Action

As a conscious citizen of India, i found this article rather disturbing, therefore i would like to draw the attention of the administrators toward this article titled "Khalistan" as it sends wrong signal to the world wide users of this web based encyclopedia, on behalf of Indian Sikh community i would like to inform that we found it is wrong, baseless and illegal that wikipedia and it community is patronizing irresponsible people who are plotting against a country which is the world largest and mature democracy.This wikipedia encyclopedia article is against the United Nations carter which stipulates that no member country should allow activity against any other member nation. This article is against the sovereignty of india and it constitution, unconstitutional contribution by citizen of india is unlawful and is punishable as per Indian law. Parliamentary Democracy in India provides multi-channel opportunity to any citizen who has any grievances against the functioning of Indian Government. As a conscious citizen of india i have also informed the Ministry of Home Affairs, Gov. Of India and have received positive response, they have promised me that they are going to take action if wikipedia is not going to take some voluntary action . I hope wikipedia organisation will take positive action otherwise wikipedia will loose credibility which has already been question due to recent controversies wikipedia has been involved.

Regards,

Sham Lal Singh mem. indian bar association

Wikipedia is not subject to the laws of the Republic of India. This article will be fixed in time (albeit slowly). If Wikipedia users wish to contribute to the article and add information that is in some way contrary to Indian law and such contributions are not contrary to US law (specifically the state of Florida), they are welcome to do so; ultimately they are responsible for their own actions. Sukh | <span style="color: green;" lang="pa">ਸੁਖ | Talk 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sham Lal Singh, please read Wikipedia:No legal threats. As an open content encyclopedia, you are most welcome to edit it so as to reach our goal of an article written from the neutral point of view and using credible sources. Replying to your points:

1. no member country should allow activity.... Wikipedia is not a nation. (although we like to think otherwise ;) )
2. We're not patronizing people. If you feel otherwise, please copyedit it in a neutral manner.
3. I also call your bluff on initimating the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think he means that the US, which hosts these servers, ought to ensure that subversive activities against India are curbed. Some advise: Take it up with the foreign office (MEA) also, with CC to the PMO and the Indian embassy in Washington DC. Just so everyone is keyed up to jump to it when orders arrive. Which orders and accord between governments we of Wikipedia shall also await before taking any drastic measures. ImpuMozhi 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, he should take it with the Foundation themselves. A member of the bar council should know better! =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that if such a request is made (I'm calling the user's bluff too), that the US would undermine its commitment to free speech to appease India :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Woah...this is getting big...I wonder whether Manmohan Singh is going to sign up to Wikipedia... :) By the way, Sham Lal Singh, I don't mean to undermine your comments but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia anyone can edit, please edit these articles if you wish to make them better. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This artical has some flaws but I do not belive it is in anyway breaking any laws....Its matter of freedom of speech and having the right to be wrong... What we need is on this artical factual contribution insted of opinions and that might help improve this page.

(Neomav 19:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

well i will not get in to the discussion whether i am misleading or deceiving any of you, but i would like to clear out few thing in your mind, this article concerns officials at north block and it is their job to take care of it. I myself cannot take any action against wikipedia, but as a person here stated that freedom..of..speech....fundamental right... therefore they can contribute to this article, i would like to make it clear that if that person is an indian citizen then he/she may have a look at the clause 19,sub clause A, 51a sub clause C of Indian Constitution. And because of that one CAN get in to trouble, nothing less than a hearing (im still talking about indian citizens). I would like to remind what happened to the m.d. of ebay's Indian division, but this matter is lot more severe and people working against sovereignty, unity and integrity of india are dealt strictly. Sham Singh

As far as I am aware, Wikipedia never budged to censor sensitive topics in China and now it's readily blocked there. I doubt they'll do anything for India either because it would undermine the principles of a NPOV encyclopedia.

Do you know how many Indian citizens have contributed objectionable material to this article? No, I didn't think so. Also, please specifically state what the problems with this article are: i.e. what could be attributed as being illegal? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 11:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to deal with the issue in this article as there are others who are paid to do so, at the same time there are provisions in law to take action against whoever (im talking about Indians here) is involved in violations. If you are going to fail to comprehend, it is failure on your side. No body is stopping anybody to take look into the constitution, as per that actions legal in nature can be taken against those who are plotting against the great nation. What is wrong in this article, im not going to deal with that. But i can deal with the people here, and there is no law in any organisation/state/country/coalition/treaty which can stop me to do so. Sham Lal

I doubt if there is law against contributing to this article, this may be ahoax ? can a person example me contributes to this article like if i add a comma or a space, i really doubt if legal action happen on the basis of that. somebody jinxed this articleAnmol.2k4 12:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sham Lal Singh, please do not post legal threats on this page, if you have any problems talk to Wikimedia Foundation for an official response, we are just editors of the page. Also, I can assure you that legally India can do nothing to stop what is being said on this page. Indian nor any other country has proof of which user is an Indian citizen, and Wikimedia is based in USA not INDIA so please stop threatening us about legal matters, and talk to Wikimedia Foundation if you have a problem. Also, if you are so inclined on this article, why don't you save the Government of India some money and fix up the article yourself. There's no point on arguing about this matter and making threats. Gsingh 01:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so this is on the record, I could not find any site talking about the Indian Bar Association, Sham Singh, please send me a link of the bar association so I can learn more about it. Gsingh 02:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is biased

Their is one section that says "Justifiaction for the attack" and another that says "Critique for the attack"...Notice that the critique section is a whole lot bigger and with much more info then the justification section....I mean just read this whole thing...Whoever made this is Pro Khalistan and its sad...LOL is this what the Gurus taught us? TO fight and seperate from each other? 71.107.54.199 09:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more friend. I am yet to come across an article that is as biased as this one. 203.197.216.5 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You both are correct, this article is very biased and supports further disintegration of India. Feel free to edit it and make it WP:NPOV. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather disburbing article I must say; full of inaccuracies and POV nonsence. I would encourage all those who have objection to make edits in line with WP:NPOV. A bunch of traitors are constantly introducing POV nonsence. I have already started removing the nonsence and would encourage you all to do that as well. AnwarA 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Khalistan is or Khalistan was

I have changed "Khalistan is..." in the leadin section to "Khalistan was...". There is no longer anything as a "Khalistan is". It is a thing of the past...thankfully. AnwarA 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So called academic sources

I have yet again removed POV nonsence on the killing of sikh youths after operation blue star. I was in Punjab myself at the time of of the operations. No such thing ever happened. Period. And even if it did, stated in isolation it would be like saying:

"The Americans soulders killed innocent hundreds of Muslim youths in Afganisthan and Iraq..." without stating why America had to attach Afganisthan and Iraq in the first place.

Even a selective statement of facts may well be a misrepresation of facts.

So I suggest let me do the hunting for reliable and neutral sources and the leave the edits along till then. Simply quoting someone who published something in some part of the world does not amount to a valid citation. The most neutral book so far on the subject has been written by Mark Tully and Satish Jacob, who were both BBC reporters in India at the time of operation Blue Star. I will try to lay my hands on the book and if I find that the statement was indeed true, I would myself include it back.

I have high regard for wikipedia and its NPOV policy. I wish to respect it always...but in its present form the article is far from NPOV. I will continue removing statements that appear POV.

AnwarA 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

...and on sources...can I quote some moolah appearing on the Al Jazira and state that September 11 attacks were justified and that the Americans deserved it, or the London bombings were justified because the Brits deserved it too? I don't think so! AnwarA 10:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pre-independence : Sikh role against British colonialism in South Asia (1912-1947)

The status of the Sikhs as a third legitimate party to the sovereignty of British India, along with Hindus and Muslims, and the role played by the Sikhs to end British colonialism, are important factors that have contributed to the discourse on Khalistan. The Sikhs, who constituted about 1.1 percent of the population of British India, played an arguably disproportionate role in the struggle to free the subcontinent of British colonialism. The table below summarises the Sikh contribution in the freedom movement. The data represents figures for those who served prison sentences, were deported to nearby islands in exile, faced capital punishment or enlisted in the Indian National Army, an armed militia that was organised by one section of Indian freedom fighters.

Section removed

Moved the following section to talk page. The role of the Sikhs in the Indian Independence Movement is of little consequence to this article. This can be moved into a new article.

Pre-independence : Sikh role against British colonialism in South Asia (1912-1947)

The status of the Sikhs as a third legitimate party to the sovereignty of British India, along with Hindus and Muslims, and the role played by the Sikhs to end British colonialism, are important factors that have contributed to the discourse on Khalistan. The Sikhs, who constituted about 1.1 percent of the population of British India, played an arguably disproportionate role in the struggle to free the subcontinent of British colonialism. The table below summarises the Sikh contribution in the freedom movement. The data represents figures for those who served prison sentences, were deported to nearby islands in exile, faced capital punishment or enlisted in the Indian National Army, an armed militia that was organised by one section of Indian freedom fighters.

Sikh involvement in Indian independence movement

Type	All Communities	Sikhs	Percentage
Prison term over 1-year	2,125	1,550	75%
Deported	2,646	2,147	80%
Indian National Army	20,000	12,000	60%

Source:

I just checked the source above and it gives the Death Sentence figures as 127, 92, 80%, respectively.138.49.98.53 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

Our Hindu friends are again showcasing a great deal of communalism. Why can Hinduism article be twice as long as the suggested length, but this one should be broken down into half of an already reduced length? To illuminate the issues properly, this article should remain intact and should not be divided. 138.49.98.53 20:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well! Where did this "Hindu" thing come in? I don't think the length of the article has anything to do with its quality. Though its easy to obscure the truth in a junk yard of irrelevant information, no matter how true the same may be. This article does just that. Look at the list of citations - over 70 lines of text devoted to citations alone; a record of sorts on Wikipedia! An article can be fun to read, regardless of the length, if it is full of relevant, true, neutral and unbiased information.

...and by the way, do care to sign up when have spare time. It helps :-)AnwarA 07:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, you're meant to compare the Hinduism article with the Sikhism article, not with the Khalistan article... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I added the following to the introduction to give a brief background that led to the Sarbat Khalsa resolution in the favor of Khalistan.

"Mary Anne Weaver of the Christian Science Monitor reports that the army operation was followed by killings of Sikh males between the ages of 15 and 35 in Punjab’s villages.[1] These violent events, together with pogroms against Sikhs in India’s major cities in November 1984, and daily terror families subsequently experienced in Punjab’s villages, gave rise to resistance."

Here we have two creidble sources. One is a journalist based in Boston and another is an academic based in Scotland who visited Punjab in the 1980s. Bost are non-Sikhs.

Also, the Khalistan movement is still supported by some Sikhs (there is a list of organizations below). So it is grammatically incorrect to express the movement in the past-tense, as was being done in the introduction before I changed it. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to think that this movement is singularly a militant movement; it is today more of a political one than a militant one. 138.49.98.53 09:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my limited knowledge on the subject, but removing links contributing to a point and adding those that support your point fall out of the wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. Please try to maintain a neutral point of view and you will see that your arguments are taken more seriously -- Lost 11:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I have been searching Christian Science Monitor for some time and have come across five articles by Mary Anne Weaver on Khalistan in 1984. However none of them was written on 15 October.[4] Also I could not find the statemtent that keeps being attributed to Mary Anne Weaver. Can we now remove this statement unless you can dig further and look up the statement. BTW, a search on Khalistan yields 5 pages on Christian Science Monitor. The last of these seem to have been written around 1993. Then why change was to is. For the record, I am only doing this as a result of my discussion with user:AnwarA on his and my talk pages. I have no interest in the topic otherwise -- Lost 13:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's another statement by Mary Anne Weaver that I found in CSM: His (Bhindrawale's) strategy was to bring the Sikhs throughout India - those he called the diaspora - into the Punjab, where Sikhs constitute 52 percent of the population today, and thus change the demographic balance. This is also precisely what proponents of Khalistan, that visionary Sikh nation, also wanted to occur. [5] Sikhs constitute less than 2 percent of India's 700 million people. Now compare this to your reference no. 3 (Kapur, Singh). Infact the link on ref 3 does not even talk about Khalistan -- Lost 13:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, you should apologize for you allegation that I made up the CSM article (see below). Regarding Kapur Singh's article, it certainly talks about the idea of a Sikh state being secular based on Sikh theology. Kapur Singh is the person who drafted the Anandpur Sahib Resolution and his views about the nature of Sikh state are very relevant. Zafarnamah 16:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Zafarnamah, this is precisely what I was afraid of. As I plead above, please pardon my limited knowledge. I have no idea or means to find out about the article mentioned below. All I say is that when I searched for the above statement I did not find it on the site. I have even given the search link above. I do apologise for any hurt that I may have caused you unintentionally.

Let me clarify why I came here in the first place. Three days back, I welcomed (one of my favorite activities on wikipedia) two well meaning newcomers. Both of them started editing this article with good intentions. However, they both got involved in an edit war regarding citations. I did try to unsuccessfully mediate, but they were both blocked for violating WP:3RR. You may check mine, user:AnwarA's and user:Qiuip talk pages to verify the same. I only thought of checking the sources after both of them showed lot of passion for it. Hence my inserts above. I have made them in completely good faith. I have not reverted your edits on the main page nor do I have any inclination to do so. The topic is not close to my heart so I am off to the place which is close to my heart. You are welcome there too. I will not be giving any further inputs on this page in the foreseeable future. Regards. (GB and google, like it or not, here I come!!)[6] -- Lost 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor Article

The date cited appears to be correct: October 15, 1984. The article is accurate, so it will remain as a reference in the introduction. It is appended below, for those who don't have access to Lexis Nexis. If you had problems with a single point, you should not have reverted all the changes: your behavior was not civil. Zafarnamah 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

COPYRIGHT 1984 THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING SOCIETY Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA)

October 15, 1984, Monday

SECTION: International; Pg. 11

LENGTH: 1012 words

HEADLINE: India's Sikhs are bitter as Army tries to weed out 'militants'

BYLINE: By Mary Anne Weaver, Special to The Christian Science Monitor

DATELINE: Chandigarh, India

BODY: Gurmeet Singh hardly looks a terrorist.

He is tiny, and he is only nine years old. Yet he and 28 other children were held as risks to the country's security for four months in Indian Army cantonments, then in a Punjabi jail, before the Supreme Court intervened.

The four- to 12-year-olds, students at a Sikh school for religious studies in Himachal Pradesh State, arrived on May 31 at the Golden Temple in Amritsar, the holiest of Sikh shrines, with their teacher, Ranbeer Kaur.

They were caught up in the Army's June 5-6 invasion of the temple aimed at clearing it of Sikh extremists encamped inside. They then became part of a nightmare that still haunts the Punjab - arrest without charge or warrant, then languishing in jail.

Finally freed on Sept. 21, Gurmeet and the other children, some seemingly in a state of shock, spoke of their interrogation by the Army and the civilian police. The children said they were repeatedly accused of being gun-feeders for the armed extremists who followed the late Sikh fundamentalist leader, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, who was killed in the temple assault. They charged that they had been frequently beaten - charges that the Army and the government deny.

It has been four months since the Army moved into this sensitive border state, where it remains the highest authority. The Army's 7,000-man presence, combined with the condition of direct or President's rule from New Delhi - which was extended for another six months last week - means for all intents and purposes that the Punjab has been denuded of habeas corpus, legal, and human rights.

The Army moved out of the Golden Temple complex last week, and it has turned law-and-order duties in the Punjab back to a paramilitary force, except for three particularly sensitive districts - Amritsar, Gurdaspur, and Firozpur - where it continues ferreting out alleged Sikh extremists.

Roads, waterways, and rivers in some areas remain sealed or under patrol.

And languid autumn afternoons are still occasionally interrupted, particularly in the western districts, by the screeching sound of military trucks carrying groups of eight to 10 soldiers, dressed in battle gear and steel helmets, their sten guns cocked.

They continue to move into villages to conduct the second phase of Operation Bluestar - massive cordon and search operations.

The pattern in each village appears to be the same. The Army moves in during the early evening, cordons a village, and announces over loudspeakers that everyone must come out. All males between the ages of 15 and 35 are trussed and blindfolded, then taken away.

Thousands have disappeared in the Punjab since the Army operation began. The government has provided no lists of names; families don't know if sons and husbands are arrested, underground, or dead.

Punjab government officials have acknowledged that at least 6,000 people have been arrested in the last four months, and that some 2,500 are still being held. Lawyers claim that probably no more than 400 to 500 could be classified as Sant Bhindranwale's supporters, or hard core militants.

On the outskirts of the tiny village of Kaimbwala near Chandigarh, the Sikh priest, Sant Pritpal Singh, nervously fingered his tunic, recounting how his temple, the Guru Sagar Sahib, was raided and looted by the Army on the night of June 6. It was 7 in the evening, and he was conducting Rehraas Sahib prayers. His tiny, whitewashed gurdwara holds only 30 worshippers. That night, 13 were inside. Twenty Army trucks, mounted with machine guns and carrying 250 to 300 troops, sealed off the entire 11/2 kilometers surrounding the temple, Sant Pritpal said.

They blindfolded the worshippers and temple workers and pushed them with rifle butts to the narrow dirt road outside, where they were given electroshock charges with high-powered batteries attached to Army trucks.

All were interrogated on the whereabouts of any villagers who may have joined Sant Bhindranwale's militants.

The Sikhs of Kaimbwala are bitter today. So was every Sikh spoken to from the Punjab's relatively tranquil districts in the east and south.

For the 9.4 million Sikhs of the Punjab, the storming of the Golden Temple and the continuing Army presence here are considered a colossal betrayal.

As they bring in the rice harvest and begin sowing wheat, the Punjab's Jat farmers - 70 percent of them Sikh - say that they will sow 25 percent less acreage in wheat this year if the government does not increase the basic procurement price.

When the farmers' protest began early this year, their movement was strictly economic. Today, they are as angry as the Punjab's other Sikhs, and their rebellion could cost the government dearly. The Punjab provides 60 percent of India's critical stockpiles of rice and wheat.

The precarious state of this strategically important region seems symbolically clear from two signs posted next to the elevator on the sixth floor of the bustling Army operations center in the government secretariat here in the Punjabi capital.

One reads: This elevator is reserved for generals and ministers only.

The other, on the opposite side of the elevator bank, says: Whosoever takes this elevator does so at his own risk!

Inside the control room, smartly turned-out junior officers man 12 operational phones. Their confident, efficient demeanors belie the fact that the Sikh pride and psyche seem no longer able to withstand the constant reminder that largely non-Sikh Army units are policing their land.

Said one retired Sikh general, In the villages, the feeling against the Army is extremely strong, and this will be a real problem when the next war with Pakistan comes.

For the first time in the history of India, villagers look at the Indian Army as an army of occupation, and these were the same villagers who, during 1971 and 1965, fed our units for several days, dug trenches, and provided civilian transport.

And, on the other hand, he asked rhetorically, how do you politicize an Army? You send it to the Punjab.

Wow, Mary Anne Weaver of the Christian Science Monitor is neutral, everybody else is not. How about K.P.S. Gill and his eye opening book on the psalms of terror in Punjab. Oh no he can't be trusted becaused he exposed the countless sacrileges carried out by the Sikh militants in the holiest of Sikh shrines. How convinient. Common man, give the guy a break. He was the DGP of Punjab and a sane Sikh himself. He is entitled to be taken seriously.

You can't pick and choose sources as per your convience. Besides Mary Anne Weaver's statements are unsubstantiated and the reported events even if they were true, had no bearing on the resolution for Khalistan. So the mention in the leadin is not warranted. Dump it in the end if you will, but after POV removal. 203.197.216.5 07:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you said you should not have reverted all the changes: your behavior was not civil. is a good example of hypocrisy. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

What a foolish claim is being made concerning K.P.S. Gill, a terrorist and a also convicted sex criminal. See Human Rights Watch's press release [7] regarding his terrorist activity and [8] concerning his conviction upheld by the Indian Supreme Court concerning his sexual violence against Rupan Deol Bajaj. I think you need to shop this hero-worship and start looking at the facts. Zafarnamah 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag

The article has come a long way to being factually-correct, so I have changed the tag to disputing its neutrality. If you know of any factually-incorrect statement, please discsuss it here.Zafarnamah 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again

Oh dear ;) Well, I'm currently working on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) so I haven't got time to work on this atm. Please people, control your urges to revert one another's edits. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)