Talk:Kirpan

Weapon uses
In the plastic.com discussion of the Canada case, someone brought up the following links showing use of the Kirpan as a weapon; thus, I've changed this to say it's "rarely" used as a weapon rather than never. Even than might not be right since we don't actually have statistics showing how often kirpans are used as weapons.

http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=170859 http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=39&ArticleID=1374206 http://www.sikhcoalition.org/LegalCanada5.asp Ken Arromdee 15:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think more clarity is needed. In the Indian murder case, was the kirpan mentioned in the murder case a small one (a blade of around 3 inches) like the ones allowed in Canadian schools? I seriously doubt it. It was probably much larger---more like a full-sized sword---way too large and dangerous to be carried legally in any public place in Canada.

As for the Yorkshire Post article---an old Sikh man took, but did not actually use a kirpan, when his family were attacked by robbers armed with guns. He would have to be a very strange man to think a small 3 inch blade would have been useful to him. In this case the kirpan was not used to attack anyone, so it's impossible to infer how large it was.

My point is that small kirpans, as lethal as the cutlery used daily by school children are allowed in Canadian schools. Larger ones are forbidden.


 * Here is an example. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/kirpan-attack-in-brampton-renews-concerns-1.897362


 * "An attack in Brampton, Ontario, Canada, last Friday involving a kirpan has renewed discussion within the Sikh community over the right to wear the ceremonial dagger. Manjit Mangat, 53, a prominent lawyer and president of the temple, was stabbed in the abdomen with a kirpan, resulting in a 12 cm wound." Vmelkon (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Today text from several copyrighted online sources was pasted into the article. I have reverted back to the previous version. Melchoir 00:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please do not repost the material. Melchoir 01:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion at User:Melchoir Talk page
I see that you have reverted the article Kirpan without listing any quotes regarding the alleged copyright violation - (I thought that the official policy is to alert the user on the discussion page before reverting see Resolving_disputes) please give the quotes before you revert the article in future so that it can be checked. (you have failed to give any material that I have used not being a quotation of regulation) It could be that the other party has used my text/article! - it not too difficult to do that, is it? --Hari Singh 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources are all listed in the page history. Melchoir 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1: Images: I will post 4 or 5 pictures of my own kirpan on this page to prove a point. May be then you will be convinced. Here's the first one. I will post the rest later. My pictures are released into the public domain - So if you find them elsewhere, it no breach of copyright. If you want me to post a few pictures of a kirpan, please let me know!!


 * 2: Page History: The items that you have quoted are "Quotes" of the regulations in the UK – This is a technique which you find everywhere on Wikipedia, in papers, books, etc!! How can one show these regulations without quoting them? And quoting a small amount of anything for reviewing is allowed, isn't it?

Further, the Reht Maryada is also a regulation which has to be quoted and is set by the SGPC, the official Sikh Organisation.

Please look at this article: Igor_Stravinsky which appears to have a few quotes - perhaps you should delete this article as well!! and then I can show you a few more such articles!!

Please be kind enough to explain the following abbreviated terms: "blank copyvio", reorder legal section and in fact, rv copyvio of http://www.sikhs.org/art12.htm back to YEvb0; see talk

Look before you leap!! What really is your problem? I think your actions are completely unwarranted and unfair and a complete farce!! --Hari Singh 02:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 1: Thank you for the new pictures. They are higher-quality, better-looking and more informative than the usual fare that anyone could copy from internet sources, and that's just one reason why copying things into Wikipedia is discouraged. I am not sure what point you're trying to prove, though. By calling the above images the first of your own, are you admitting that the previous images are, in fact, copyright violations? (No, I am not admitting anything of that sort - all I am saying is that I have uploaded 1000s of pictures to the web and you will find them elsewhere - that does not mean a copyright breach, does it?)


 * 2: If you are referring to this edit, the material I removed was more than a short quote. It is the entire content of the "Sikh Employees" section of the source, including two speakers and multiple paragraphs. I think you got this wrong - the first was quote from warwickshire police and the second was the discussion in parliament, each was less than 10 lines and they both quote the legal position regarding the wearing of the kirpan in the UK - which is what I am trying to inform the users about. '''Tell me how you would quote regulations of this sort? Please see article:Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968 and by doing a google search I found:  Almost the whole of the 4 sections are verbatim copies - doesn't  this breach copyright?


 * Okay, I've seen Igor Stravinsky. There are only short snippets, each no longer than a couple of sentences. Nothing is reproduced in its entirety.
 * "Copyvio" is short for "copyright violation", and "rv" is short for "revert". YEvb0 was the user whose version I reverted to. Thanks for the clarification
 * Let me assure you that I am not treating you unfairly. Sadly, getting rid of copyrighted material is a routine exercise on Wikipedia. It is not usually controversial. And if you'll give me a minute, I'll list the quotes that alerted me to the individual sources. Melchoir 02:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For this edit, you provided the source yourself. It is a newspaper article, one of the worst things to copy, because people are actively making money from it. At the bottom of the page, the source says "Copyright 1995-2000. The Cincinnati Enquirer" When posting the article the second time, I left out this section - you still rv'ed the article? Why? As this did not apply, did it


 * For this edit, I have already stated my reasons. Don't forget to check out the copyright used, which does not permit commerical redistribution. Since Wikipedia does permit commercial redistribution, we cannot copy such material. I think you are wrong here - the passage that I have quoted is a small section of that days business and no permission is required for the purposes of the point being made here - which to inform everyone working for the UK government about the rules governing the kirpan - I think that is very important point to make and the best way is to quote the discussion so that there is no doubt. 'How else do you think this point can be made?


 * For this edit, I Googled the phrase "anyone to carry a blade exceeding the length" and came up with the source, which is another newspaper article, saying "Copyright © 2005 Khalsa Press, All rights reserved." This search gives 169,000 results because it is part of a regulation and again I changed the wording on the second version. '''You still rv'ed this edition - please explain?


 * For this edit, you provided the source, which says "© Warwickshire Police 2003". see fair-use and "quotation of regulation" quoted by me elswhere


 * Finally, the last straw was when I saw that only one new section of writing remained. I Googled "weapon is both incorrect and misleading" and came up with the source, which claims copyright Sandeep Singh Crar, All Rights Reserved. This section was changed on the second edition - you still rv'ed it - so what was the reason the second time?

This combination of theft and plagiarism is unacceptable. If it had appeared in a new article, it would have earned a db-copyvio tag and been deleted long ago. As it is, there is a clean version of the article, so I restored it. And that brings us to the present. Melchoir 02:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC) this statement is utterly wrong - I have not gained anything in setting up this article. Further, this article has GFDL status (Sikhiwiki) and you should not be questioning its status as such - Also, the only beneficiary from this article would be Sikhism and I am sure that all Sikhism site would have no objections to their material being used to promote this religion. The proof of this is Sikhiwiki where no complaint has been received about any of the point that you have raised from any party ever!. See sikhiwiki.org

Below is a section from Wikipedia regarding use of material for quotation: ''What's copyrighted? Copyright exists automatically upon creation in a tangible form. An author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is in the public domain, licensed with the GFDL, or is otherwise compatible with the GFDL, makes material reusable under current policy, unless it is inherently in the public domain due to age or source. What about fair use? Under fair use guideline, brief selections of copyrighted text may be used, but only with full attribution and only when the purpose is to comment on or criticize the text quoted.''

Clearly, "fair use" allows one to use material to support or criticise a point being made. To show that the kirpan can be worn in any country, one need to quote the


 * regulation or
 * the "official source",

which is what I have done.

I think your attitude is incorrect and unfair and misuse of this site? I am not happy with your decision and wish to take this further. In the meantime I will be posting a basic version of the article again without the points that you have mentioned above or amended. I would appreciate if you discuss any changes before you make them - as mention at Resolving_disputes

I think you are deliberately picking on my religion and this article. --Hari Singh 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replied at my own talk page, where this discussion actually took place. I don't need to be attacked here like this. This article is now off my watchlist, so do what you will with it. It's an incoherent chimera made of thinly paraphrased, argumentative, POV quotations and undue attention to insignificant details. I can only hope that someone spiritually acceptable will be allowed to clean it all up. Good luck! Melchoir 05:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Kirpan in the US
What's the US policy on Kirpans in schools? I heard of a case similar to the one in Canada happening in the US, but don't know anything else about it.
 * I believe that at present the matter is dealt with on a state by state basic. However, in a case last year, of Sukhpreet Singh at Wayne State University who was arrested on August 24, 2005 at a hearing in December, 2005 was aquitted of all charges. See rediff.com and www.unitedsikhs.orgfor more information. --Hari Singh 13:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced block quote
When questioned on the official policy of the Foreign Office on the wearing of the kirpan by Sikh employees, the official response was:


 * The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's (FCO) commitment not to discriminate unfairly on the grounds of religion or belief is set out clearly in our equal opportunities policy. This states: "All FCO staff are entitled to be treated with respect. No staff should be exposed to unfair discrimination, including harassment, bullying or victimisation on any grounds, particularly gender, family status, race, disability, religion, faith or sexual orientation."

Sharpness of the blade
The recent case in Canada of the Supreme Court ruling that Kirpans can be worn to school has brought up discussion regarding whether or not the Kirpan needs to be sharp, or if it can be dull and still serve the same ceremonial and religious purposes. Could we have this clarified in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adc fortytwo (talk • contribs) 3 March 2006
 * I came to the talk page to ask exactly the same question. Are most Kirpans dull, or are many kept sharp? -postglock 06:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Danish case
Hello. Could whoever posted the extracts from the judgment of the recent Danish case let me know where they found those quotations? I'm a student of human rights law and it would be tremendously useful if I could read the case. Thanks.

Defensive Weapon
...as used in the article, is a nonsense. There's no such thing. I would grant you "ornamental weapon" as it's clearly ornamented, but the difference between a, so called, defensive weapon and an offensive weapon is intent. However, intent cannot be bestowed on an inanimate object. The whole "Defensive Weapon" article should be wiped: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_weapon as proselytizing for the gun lobby rather than presenting fact, so you can leave that argument out.

You could easily add "intended as a" to be accurate. Zaelath 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You said there is no such thing, but what measurements did you take to determine that it is ornamental rather than Defensive? Do you measure mass, the material it is made of, the shape of the handle, the electrical conductance? Personally, what I did was read about the religion and it was introduced by some guy because Sikh believers were being attacked. So, the believers used it as a defensive weapon. I suggest that you study the history of this religion. 15:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.145.4 (talk)

Material
Question: is there any rule about what material the kirpan must be made of? Does it have to be metal? If there are no specific rules, then perhaps it could be made of cardboard or cloth. That way it would pass through metal detectors and would certainly be allowed by any security guard with even a tiny bit of common sense. Zsero 16:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

How is "dagger" disrespectful?
Do we have any explanation on why Sikhs don't like the word "dagger"? If we can have some sort of explanation we might be able to add it in neutral language like "Sikhs prefer not to compare their ceremonial knives with other weapons..." But without an explanation we can't leave point of view statements in the article. Nick (talk) 21:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Respectfulness aside, dagger is inaccurate. By definition a dagger has a double edged blade and is intended primarily for stabbing. A Kirpan does not fit this description. 24.69.70.188 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

They don't like the violent connotations of "dagger" on a religious symbol. Just as Christians are reluctant to remember the cross also represents a torture device, again negative connotations associated with a nobler representation. Nonetheless it is a small dagger and should be described as such for lack of better description. 22:49, 10 July 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.135.92 (talk)

As (24.69.70.188) said: that's not a strictly accurate description. The Kirpan is universally a curved blade, some so much so that they're useless for stabbing, and can range in size from a pen-knife to a sword. Knife or blade is a more accurate description than dagger. 75.92.165.95 (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

"Just as Christians are reluctant to remember the cross also represents a torture device" - The whole point of Christianity is that a cross is a torture device!!!109.159.99.253 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

A Sica is also a curved knife designed for fighting and the Wikipedia article describes it as a dagger. If a sica can be described as a dagger, so can a kirpan. JDZeff (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Overuse of quotations in first section
as you know there is a tag on the first section that states there are too many quotes, it would be better if they wern't in the quote box, and they are either removed or rephrased and worded into the section without the quotes. anyone else agree with me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbun (talk • contribs) 17:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Danish Weapons Law
I've re-worded the section on Denmark for the moment: there were several references to the "Danish Weapons Law", but no detail about which actual law this is. Could somebody with a knowledge of the Danish statute book give some detail about which particular law (act and year) was used in these cases? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bias
The article is wildly biased towards the Sikh POV. E.g. "...the bravery of a Khalsa can never be questioned as history is witness to the steadfastness of their resolve", etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.141.100 (talk) 13:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And? ........Whats your point?--Raidcmdr (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

IAN GOODLEY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.64.186.143 (talk) 12:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Indian constiution
Regarding the following claim:
 * Article 25 of the Indian Constitution deems the carrying of a kirpan to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion, thus legalizing the carrying of a kirpan by Sikhs.

I think the claim that wearing a Kirpin is legal in India is pretty non-contentious. And it's protection by the Constitution would make sense. But, I think the claim that the Constitution specifically covers the issue of the Kirpan, should be cited, to something other thank sikhinformationcentre.org, which appears to be a bias source. It also happens to be invalid link. --Rob (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I am changing the reference to lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc.It specifies the same thing,but the reference is non-POV as it is .nic.in,which is used for Indian goverment agencies.The exact text as per the source is:Explanation I.—The wearing and carrying of kirpans shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion.This is a part of Aritlce 25 of the constitution of India and hence I'm changing the text and source.Zoravar (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Appearance, size
Can someone add more info about what Kirpans look like? There is a picture but what is the size of the knife there? And do Kirpans have to look like that (thin handle, curved blade)? How much can they vary? Do they have to be “blessed” somehow? Do they have to contain symbols? 94.142.238.245 (talk) 11:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight
This paragraph:

"On 11 September 2016 a group of men, some carrying blades, during an early morning religious service occupied the foyer of a Sikh gurdwara (temple) in Leamington Spa, Warwickshire, where a wedding between a Sikh bride and a Hindu groom had been scheduled, threatening worshippers and causing the wedding to be postponed. A trustee of the temple described the men as 'fanatical extremists'. Police, with firearms in light of reports that the men were armed (British police do not normally carry firearms), attended, arrested 55 men, and seized 'a significant number of bladed weapons', all but one of which were kirpans. There had been several previous incidents where a group of men had attempted to enter the gurdwara over the issue of mixed marriages, and been stopped by temple security staff. Gurdwara trustee Jaswat Videe said that the intruders were “absolutely wrong” to think that Sikhism prohibits interfaith marriage: 'Scripture doesn’t discriminate between anyone ... The Guru says every citizen in the world is equal.'[20][21] Other opinions among Sikhs strongly oppose such mixed marriages.[22]"

While it is interesting gives undue weight to an incident, whereas the article is about the implement. I believe it should be trimmed radically, perhaps omitted based upon WP:NOTNEWS. It seems to me to have a place in a different article, wikilnked from here, but not in this article, certainly in this detail. Fiddle  Faddle  20:26, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * [Edited 12Sep16] I wrote this. My reason for including it is that the article suggests that the kirpan, often a real rather than symbolic knife, is worn in practice for purely religious reasons, only symbolically signifying "the courage to defend the rights of all who are wrongfully oppressed or persecuted". (When I first saw the article years ago I think this view came across more strongly.) Here we have a specific incident apparently of kirpan-carriers threatening Sikhs in opposition to their view, with the police confiscating the weapons. I have deleted the opinions on mixed marriages. I think this incident, and any other where the kirpan was deployed as a threatening or wielded weapon, is very relevant to the article topic, and to society at large (it isn't a purely inter-Sikh issue). Possibly this case will reveal further facets and changes as it continues, but it appears rather shocking. Pol098 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * the WP:COATRACK policy prevents detailed discussion of issues other than the issue of the article. Everything about the event can be covered on the page of the temple. A very short summary should suffice. -- Callinus (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If the group had been wielding kirpans as weapons (the police were originally called about a group of men with bladed weapons) it would have been very relevant. It has later transpired that the kirpans confiscated were ceremonial, with no reports that they were wielded, so the incident loses its relevance, and I will delete the paragraph. The details of the reason for the intrusion were indeed irrelevant, and I had deleted them a couple of days ago because of this. Pol098 (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirpan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930235808/http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=21666 to http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=147&a=21666

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Swedish law
If somebody could edit the part about the swedish law that would be great, I am a bit unsure on how to do it properly myself however it is not truly factually correct. Swedish law forbids carrying certain kinds of tools that is classified as street weapons in public spaces yes, however there is no specific ban on knives in this, it is all based on the design and intended use of the tool in question (not only knives fall under this). Furthermore swedish law specifically bans ANY item that might be used as a weapon to be carried for illegal purposes, this includes knives but also screwdrivers, baseball bats, lengths of chain and other such things. This means that it is fully legal to carry anything that is not specifically designed for combat in public as long as you do not carry it for illegal purposes (illegal purposes includes defense of self or others). This is a bit of a tricky law and unfortunately not fully known by a lot of people, including some members of Law Enforcement. The law is named as follows: Lag (1988:254) om förbud beträffande knivar och andra farliga föremål

Worth noting is that swedish Law Enforcement has put up a bit of an odd description of the law on their own website which does not fully follow neither the actual text in the law or the precedents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.123.162.201 (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Australian Law
I do not have all of the details, but will look into it and then edit if someone else has not picked this up yet. In Queensland, State law prohibits the carrying of knives for self defense or to help others (as the symbolic use of the Kirpan) but allows carrying in public for religious reasons. The Kirpan is named specifically in this legislation Chris Swart (talk) 11:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kirpan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120818030601/http://www.london2012.com/mm/Document/Documents/General/01/25/44/06/Prohibitedandrestricteditemslists_Neutral.pdf to http://www.london2012.com/mm/Document/Documents/General/01/25/44/06/Prohibitedandrestricteditemslists_Neutral.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)