Talk:Satwant Singh/Archive 1

Untitled
We don't need a complete discussion of the events leading up to the assassination. These are not relevant to the subject of the article. DJ Clayworth 03:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course the five lines of detail can be left there. It provides a context for the man's conduct.Zafarnamah 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I notice that your 'details' have removed some significant (and undisputed) facts about the assaults, namely that the people inside the temples were fortifying them and had stockpiles of weapons. Was there perhaps a reason why you wanted those facts omitted. I cannot obtain copies of the references you cite; however the information you give contradicts what is said by other editors on Wikipedia. Since this is a contentious issue I propose leaving a reference to Operation Blue Star (there should be a link to it anyway) and saying as little as possible here. That way people can read the whole story. For myself, I would appreciate an explanation of how the assaults could have been 'planned for months' when the occupation had not bee going on that long. DJ Clayworth 18:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the passage I replced, so that people can form their own opinions.
 * On 1 June 1984 on the orders of Indira Gandhi, the Indian Army attacked the Harmandir Sahib complex, along with 37 other gurduārās simultaneously, in June 1984.   The attack had been planned several months beforehand and was timed for an important anniversary in the Sikh calendar when thousands of pilgrims would be expected to be present. The army operation was followed by wholesale killings of Sikh males between the ages of 15 and 35 in Punjab’s villages. These violent events, caused outrage amongst the Sikh community. Beant Singh and Satwant Singh were Sikh bodyguards of Indira Gandhi, yet on 31 October 1984 they assasinated her in her garden, putting sixteen bullets in her chest and abdomen.

Please read Neutral point of view. We cannot state as fact a point of view which is not held by all. If there are different points of view we should state all. It is certainly not uncontested that the attacks on the temples were planned months in advance, or that the subsequent violence was government orchestrated. It is allowable to say that Sikhs believe this to be true 9for example) but since this is a problematic issue we should really give a more detailed picture, which is done at Operation Blue Star. DJ Clayworth 18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Factually Incorrect
The article herein mentiones several factually incorrect statements, like "The attack had been planned several months beforehand and was timed for an important anniversary in the Sikh calendar when thousands of pilgrims would be expected to be present. The army operation was followed by wholesale killings of Sikh males between the ages of 15 and 35 in Punjab’s villages"

We all know that this is a blatant untrue. I think this acticle should be more neutral. Wikipedia is not the right place for the expression of one's own sentiments, it is a place for facts. (unsigned contribution)

There is unfortunately an editor who keeps replacing the neutral version with their own 'referenced' version of the article. The version I have just reverted to is about as neutral as it is possible to be. Feel free to revert back to it if you prefer it. DJ Clayworth 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you an expert on Punjab that you question the neutrality of Pettigrew and Cynthia Mahmood? If you say that something is "blatantly untrue", that's a serious allegation. You need to provide evidence for it. Wouldn't you agree? You need to read the sources that have been cited before you make these claims. Zafarnamah 07:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Just so we are clear about things, I did not write the first two paragraphs of this section. That's why I added the words (unsigned contribution) to them above. They were written by an anonymous contributor. I don't actually think that what was written is 'blatently untrue'. However I do know that the things in the version of the article written by Zafarnamah contains some statements which would not be agreed with by everybody.

What Wikipedia does in this case is to write about what different people think on a subject: so "these people say this, but others say that". In this article I believe it would be better to avoid the controversy. The full details should be given at Operation Blue Star, and it is not clear to me Zafarnamah why you want to edit this article but not Operation Blue Star. Since you are insistent, I'll try to include some more detail. DJ Clayworth 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Zafarnamah
On many places, regarding Khalistan Movement, I have seen Zafarnamah, rather than writing a neutral article, always trying to write inflammatory stuff regarding the Khalistan movement. Is this an undercurrent these guys are trying to create? And if yes, Should wikipedia allow this?203.200.225.151 (talk) 08:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)BAba