Talk:Sukhdev Singh Babbar/Archive 1

Why this article is recommended for deletion when following NPOV are the references
I challenge the whole respected Wikipedia community to prove following sources as POV: The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International,The Hindu, The Tribune, The Vancouver Sun, United Nations, Asia times, CBC News Canada, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, Sify, India Today,  The Indian Express,  The daily Excelsior And If these are NPOV, then this person is surely a Notable' personality and this article should be kept like this.

I strongly beleive that Anti-Khalistan movement elements can never digest provided references and they won't like the world to read about this person and the crimes commited by Indian Government and its security forces to eliminate even this notability's name and his family from the world. Please save this article @ Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukhdev Singh Babbar Singh6 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes
I strongly object to "Awarded- martyr" who awarded this title? where is it acknowledged? I think this is not the right forum for spreading propoganda!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.225.151 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I've made a lot of changes to the article for the following reasons:


 * The article is poorly written. There are a lot of grammatical and spelling errors. In addition, there are quite a lot of peacock terms.
 * The article has a few instances of original research, and many sentences completely fail WP:NPOV.
 * The section regarding his family is irrelevant to the article. The article is about him and not his family.

I'm not sure why you are reverting the article to its AfD state. If anything that's where you would NOT want it to be. I'm trying to improve the article here, so please don't keep reverting it to what is clearly an inferior version. Finally, don't accuse me of "suppressing facts". I'm not doing any such thing. -- vi5in [talk] 21:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I was requested to simply re-structre the article with sub-sections for its assessment. I have spent a lot of time on reading the references and it's text and I do not believe that it's text violates WP:NPOV. You have un-successfully tried to get this article deleted so I can have an idea about your recent edits. Regarding grammer/spelling issues, please feel free to help the article.
 * I do not see any sentence failing WP:NPOV, every sentence is duly referenced. This is one of the best referenced articles I have ever seen.
 * As per Amnesty International Babbar's family women were tortured because of Babbars as well, for example: - "the police tortured her, and threatened to kill her and to torture her children if she did not disclose the whereabouts of her husband", "The two women were taken by van to the Beeco interrogation centre, Batala, and detained without charge. Both women say that they were tortured during interrogation about their husbands' whereabouts" - Hence suppressing this information will be favouring the regime, which will be WP:NPOV issue.
 * The house which police officials forcibally captured in city of Patiala is the same house which was raided to capture Mr. Babbar and it is the same place where he died.
 * Regarding word "hundereds", provided reference does say that "Ajaib Singh Bagri addressed hundreds of worshippers".
 * So, Please leave this article as it is and let it go through its assessment, Your help is greatly appreciated.--Irek Biernat (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I did nominate the article for deletion. If you went through my comments on that article you'll see that I did withdraw my nomination. There are quite a few sentences that fail NPOV:


 * The section title "Indian harassment and torture of his family" itself is completely NPOV.
 * How about "the circumstances of his death are disputed; it could be a Death, Murder or an Encounter" - That is completely OR and is a deliberate attempt to induce confusion. The article only says that the circumstances are disputed; not how they are.
 * Or even "During Khalistan movement, the very name of Sukhdev Singh Babbar, chief of Babbar Khalsa International, would strike terror in the minds of the police" is blatantly NPOV.


 * Just going through the diff will help you see them. This is frankly not "one of the best referenced articles" I have ever seen. If anything, it is a terribly written article full of OR, NPOV, Peacock terms and all-round horrible English. You'll notice that I left in the stuff about alleged torture, because it's well referenced and it does have a place in the article since the security forces were interrogating them trying to find Babbar's location. However, the case regarding his family and their home has no place in this article. I apologize for removing the term "hundreds". I skimmed through the article and I missed it at the beginning. The article has been protected now, which is perfect - I was actually going to request it. So I urge you to actually take part in the discussion and improve the article instead of reverting (which I'm afraid I think you might do) to an inferior version of the article. -- vi5in [talk] 21:49, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Vivin, I have been following you and it appears you have an overt agenda to dismiss atrocities that were inflicted by some of your coreligionists. This short article is well-referenced and you should take your agenda elsewhere.  If you do find that something lacks a reference, bring it up in a discussion on this page instead of being disingenuous and removing important information. You can tag that sentence asking for a reference and if the editors cannot provide a reference, only then it should be removed.  There is no original research in this article--this information has been cited by Amnesty and other mainstream human rights sources. Please desist from removing important content that an editor has spent a great deal of time writing and which is supported by mainstream credible sources. Zafarnamah (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Irek, for re-structuring this article. I strongly support your version because this is the same text which was kept at its AfD decision.
 * This article is an excellent example of collective Indian atrocities on Khalistan movement people and their family members. There are extreme “(fully referenced – Amnesty International etc) un-law full torture/harassment/ illegal-custody incidents of his family members,  illegal occupation of Mr Babbar’s own house (where he died) immediately after his death by Indian officials etc” facts (every incident strongly referenced) in this article which put Indian Government and its acts into bad/cruel shape. It shows that how Indian security forces treated Mr Babbar and everything which was “directly associated with him”, hence that everything became part of this article. It also show how Indian security forces openly violated law of the land.
 * Deliberate removal of word “Indian” from section “Indian harassment and torture of his family” will be equivalent to hiding the facts, which in-turn become a WP:POV pushing. When it was Indian security forces who committed these crimes then why to hide word “Indian”
 * The sentence "the circumstances of his death are disputed; it could be a Death, Murder or an Encounter" is “NOT” an OR because this is what The New York times says:The circumstances of his death are still unclear. At first, the police said he was killed in a gun battle outside the city. Now the police say that he was unarmed and that he killed himself by biting on a cyanide capsule. A third report said that Mr. Babbar was shot by the police after his capture.
 * Regarding…..”the very name of Sukhdev Singh Babbar, chief of Babbar Khalsa International, would strike terror in the minds of the police” is not WP:POV because this is what The Tribune says, i.e. The very name of Sukhdev Singh Babbar, chief of Babbar Khalsa International, would strike terror in the minds of the people and the police in the eighties.
 * Vivin, you know its AfD nomination history. You nominated it by claiming WP:NOTABILITY issue, but when I countered your claim by: The New York Times, Amnesty International, Amnesty International, The Hindu, The Tribune, The Vancouver Sun, United Nations, Asia times, CBC News Canada, Society for the Study of Peace and Conflict, Sify,  India Today,  The Indian Express,  The daily Excelsior, then even though you had to accept the notability but after finding no other logic, you started requesting its “Merger”.
 * You are doing a similar act now. The documented/referenced truth must “survive”.--Singh6 (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How about we concentrate on the article instead of accusing me of having some ridiculous agenda? For the last time, if I really had an agenda don't you think I'd remove the section on the harassment and torture of his family? No. I left that in there, because it is well-referenced and sourced. I have no idea what standards you use to judge the quality of the article but it must be from some bizarre parallel universe. The current version of the article is probably the worst example of the English Language I've seen, in addition to containing massive amounts of NPOV, PEACOCK and OR violations. I'm not going to humour any of you by addressing any of your ridiculous claims of a hidden agenda. I've already given examples of terrible writing/OR/NPOV/PEACOCK violations in this article. If need be, I'll invite other editors to take a look at this article. -- vi5in [talk] 00:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * User: Vivin, Please do not forget that you have got (referenced) answers of every single question you have asked. And just like every other respected editor, you should also respect and accept the referenced answers which you have received from other respected editors. Thanks. --Singh6 (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't received answers to my questions. Opinion-based sentences that have no relevance to the article (such as "striking terror") are being inserted into the article and stated as if they are some sort of important fact. Finally, none of you have even addressed my point that his article is a terribly written piece of prose. It seems a few of you have a rather anti-Indian/pro-Khalistani POV, in addition to trying to make this guy out to be some sort of heroic martyr. That is reflected in sentences such as "striking terror in the hearts of police" and an entire section that is quite simply called "Indian torture and harassment of his family". In fact, only refers to actions taken by security forces. We're trying to write a neutral article here, not an anti-Indian/pro-Khalistani propaganda piece. -- vi5in [talk] 19:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article has been unprotected. However, I'm not going to revert since I'm sure one of you is going to revert my changes. What I'd like is to get a discussion going here. If you'd rather not just discuss with me, I can request the Mediation Cabal to intervene. Would that be acceptable? -- vi5in [talk] 01:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which referenced answer you did not receive? If you do find that something lacks a reference, bring it up in the discussion on this page instead of being disingenuous and removing important information. You can tag that sentence asking for a reference and if the editors cannot provide a reference, only then it should be removed.--Singh6 (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look at what I said above. Certain points need no mention and all those points do is needlessly fluff up an article - especially things like "striking terror". You'll notice that I put certain other things back in - especially the part about the disputed circumstances of his death. I didn't leave it in the misleading (and poorly written form) of "encounter, murder, etc." or whatever it was before. I actually paraphrased from the article. Therefore, please don't accuse me of trying to hide information. -- vi5in [talk] 07:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war
There seems to be an edit war here, but there's no discussion of how to actually come to a consensus on this person and how to describe him. Obviously, we need less reverting and more talking. skoosh (háblame) 13:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

108.242.254.59 (talk)` I wonder if sikh value system allows a person from an ordinary agricultural back ground living in self built  palatial house worth several lakhs of rupees in the nineties in a posh urban locality,living with two ladies ,referenced to be his 'wives' and owning the murder of several persons,be characterized as a sikh martyr! Referencing is selective to praise a terrorist. There is no mention of persons he got killed and the sources of money to build that house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.242.254.59 (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The source "Punjab: The Knights of Falsehood" should be removed
This source is written by K.P.S. Gill, who himself had personal stake in the conflict as the chief head of the state police, and has been credibly accused of many crimes in how he ran the Punjab police during the 80s and 90s conflicts.

In his book, "The Knights of Falsehood", Gill makes multiple claims, but he does not cite a single source, or even explain how he came about the information himself. The source provides no backing for us to believe any of its claims, and should be removed. I advise everyone to read the link provided in the article, it is clear how poor of a source it is.

CalicoMo (talk) 04:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)