Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 4

message: Khālistān (Punjabi: ਖਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ) (lit. "pure-land") is the name given to the proposed nation-state encompassing the present Indian state of Punjab and all Punjabi-speaking areas contiguous to its borders being proposed by separatist organisations. A movement for Khalistan was precipitated when 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 coincided with an important anniversary in the Sikh calendar when thousands of pilgrims were 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, 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.
:The introduction itself looks twisted.
:*A movement for Khalistan was precipitated when the Indian Army attacked the Harmandir Sahib complex. Wasn't it the other way around? Didn't the Indian army storm the complex AFTER the movement started and some militants took over the Gurudwara? 
:*The army operation was followed by wholesale killings of Sikh males between the ages of 15 and 35 in Punjab’s villages. This is also incorrect. Yes, anti-Sikh riots were there but they were AFTER IG was assassinated and perhaps were politically instigated.
:The above statements show as if anti-Sikh sentiments are/were endemic or generally prevelant in India. I have only read the introduction and by the look of it, the article does look rather biased and POV. It will easily lead the uninformed reader into thinking that Sikhs are hated in India, which is definitely not the case. Deleting it would be an extreme step IMHO. It would be best to tone it down a bit. Views from Sikh wikipedians would help a great deal, I feel. Rohitbd 08:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right - the movement for Khalistan reached its climax around the time the Harmandir Sahib was stormed.  I've edited the article to reflect this.  I'll also update the article to fix the second point which is also incorrect.  I appreciate you looking at this article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, just checking up on the second point.  It's based on Khalistan#Operation_Woodrose.  I think this point needs more discussion, hopefully Zafarnamah can clear this up. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree on both counts.  There is zero evidence to show that Indian army attacked the Darbar Sahib in June 1984 because of a demand for Khalistan. Bhindrawale did not demand Khalistan; he was demanding the fullfillment of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, instead.  It is state-controlled media's disinformation that he demanded Khalistan. Joyce Pettigrew, Cynthia Mahmood, Ram Narayan Kumar, who are the top scholars would support the view that the Khalistan movement precipitated because of the attack.  Secondly, this article is not debating whether a group is loved or hated in India.  We are here to narrate facts.  The Operation Woodrose was reported by two important sources: 1. Christian Science Monitor's Mary Anne Weaver, who reported that young Sikh men in Punjab's villages were eliminated; 2. Justice Tarakunder's report that is based on extensive fieldwork.  I am therefore going to revert these changes. Zafarnamah 04:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: May I ask what is the entire point of the structure of the page? Alternative versions are presented and citations given all pander to an extremist section. The United States itself recognises several of these Khalistani Organizations as terrorists.
If we follow the same standards, then Al Qaeda should have its own webpage, with propoganda written by Zarqawi et backed up as a reference. 
Akash s 20 18:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you propose a better or different structure to the page? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 14:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page structure

message: Pakistan supported the formation of khalistan,although i dont have any source as of now to support that.it also looked to do something like what india did for bangladesh.
there is no doubt whatsoever that khalistani seperatists got arms and ammunitons from their nearest neighbour pakistan.--Jayanthv86 11:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan's support 

message: Sukh, I am adding a new section entitled "Violence and Terrorism Attributed to Sikh Militants."  What I have added should be treated as a placeholder.  I believe there is a lot more we can add to this and we should reference it properly so give it credibility. Your help is needed in expanding this section and rewriting what's little I have placed there.Zafarnamah 05:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Violence and Terrorism Attributed to Sikh Militants section

message: There is zero evidence to show that Indian army attacked the Darbar Sahib in June 1984 because of a demand for Khalistan. Bhindrawale did not demand Khalistan; he was demanding the fullfillment of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, instead.  The Khalistan movement reached its climax in the 1990s when majority of the Punjabis boycotted the Lok Sabha elections in 1992, bringing Congress back to power.  See Ethnic Conflict in India by Gurharpaul Singh, a political scientist based in UK for a break-down of the election results. Zafarnamah 16:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Blue Star - Climax point of Khalistan or just beginning?

message: I've protected this page because it looks like we have a pretty nasty edit war going on. I would suggest that people here use dispute resolution, which involves getting outside input to end the dispute. Just a caution. I see lots of use of the word "vandalism" in this discussion. I don't see vandalism here. I see 2 sides in a content dispute. Vandalism would be more like if someone replaced this page with a swear word or was randomly removing sections of the article. I don't see that here. I see 2 sides with legitimate wants. So. Work it out. And I'm not a mediator. Just protecting the page. When you guys have a consensus and are ready to have the page unprotected, put a request up at requests for page protection. Thanks. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: All we need is, a simple sentence suming up the criticsms as indicated in the article.  The existing quote should be left as-is.  I think it's fairly plain to see that the authorities were given a free hand to stamp out terror.
:"authorities were given a free hand to stamp out terror" i agree with both of you on that, but i was talking about Ai's saying that human rights are STILL being violated in india.
:source:wikipedia
:Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot reference Wikipedia within Wikipedia itself.  I presume you mean that AI is lying about human rights violations in India?   Or at least exaggerating them? As I said, you either need a source that says that AI in general is biased OR it's biased specifically in this instance. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Amnesty International

message: Need sources for this.  It must be noted, that I've finally read Mark Tully's book, and in it he writes:
"But Zia adopted a very cautious attitude to the Punjab crisis.  His advisers told him that Mrs Gandhi was spoiling for a fight because she saw a war with Pakistan as a way of diverting her people's attention from Punjab and other difficulties they were facing.  War was the last thing Zia wanted.  He knew there was no guarantee that he would be the first Pakistani ruler to defeat the Indian army and remembered the fate of Field Marshal Ayub Khan and General Yahya Khan, who had both tried and failed.  So although he would dearly have liked to avenge the Pakistan army's surrender at Dacca in 1971, he did nothing which could give Mrs Gandhi an excuse for going to war.  He did not openly support the Sikhs and we have no found evidence he gave them covert help.  In fact, he did the very reverse; he set out on what he called a 'peace offensive'.  winning almost every diplomatic trick, General Zia convinced the United States and the Western world that he genuinely wanted good relations with India.  Whether Mrs Gandhi ever seriously comtpelated war or not, General Zia's peace offensive blocked that option."
:Then who provided weapons, and why. you know about that article in rediff in which an expert said that Pakistan would have supported their existence.
:source: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/08spec.htm http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jun/03inter.htm
:Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It definately needs to be mentioned that the Indian government says that Pakistan supported the movement.  However, other sources such as the above also need to be mentioned. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistan's Support

message: This is mentioned, but only in passing and not in enough depth.  Needs expansion
:And a big one (that was one of the reason that started most of the violence), and it should also be included that how much harm both the assassins did to the sikh people, i agree Hindus and Muslims did. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs expansion, but we need to distinguish between the pogroms and Khalistan.  The pogroms were not anti-Khalistan, they were anti-Sikh 'revenge' for the death of Indira Gandhi.  A lot of info can be put into 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indira Gandhi's Assassination

message: All reputable sources are fine.  We shouldn't decide what we think is neutral or not.
:Sukh please explain to me the meaning of reputable sources, im definitely not happy with the kind of sources being included in this article. newspapers are what i call reputable resources. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A suitable source would be published work.  That is, newspapers, news websites, books but not blogs and personal sites. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of neutral sources

message: Yes there is support from outside India.  What do you wish to be said about it?
:Comparison with the support from Sikh in india (in words). Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need sources that discuss this.  We have personally not conducted a survey so can't be sure of the true opinion. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are some useful sources indicating opinion:   Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support from outside India

message: ..and their past where they have recognised Indian constitution.  This should probably be in their respective person articles.
:Why ?, as you said this article is too big for a reason then why not include them ? Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can include it here now, but when we have to reduce the size of the article, they'll have to be moved.  Up to you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable people involved in proposal for Khalistan

message: We're falling into the trap of equating terrorism with Khalistan.  They are not the same thing.  Several Sikhs support the idea of Khalistan through peaceful means.  But yes, we need to mention prominent Sikhs who are against the idea of Khalistan and have indeed actively worked against it.
:Name those people please(those who wanted khalistan with peace), and if possible opposite of that. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, as ever - sources. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sikh people in Indian Gov/ Police who have tried to curb terrorism in Punjab.

message: Definately needs mentioning.
:"here you have used the word definitely", what about those Hindus and Muslims who lost their life, pride & homes in punjab.
:Shouldn't there be a section about that , and if yes i think it should be the first section , because indian army took actions after those killings/ massacre of Hindus & Muslims. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with you. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People in positions of power involved is violence against Sikh

message: POV should be sorted with this discussion (eventually).  It is too big, but lets not worry about size yet.  Let it get as big as possible and then we can split it into several articles that are easier to digest.
:size has been like this for quiet some time. can anybody explain to me why ? Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you've followed the history, you will find that the page is actually half the size it once was!!  We're here working as volunteers and page size is the last item on our list. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article being too big to read and its POV against Indians

message: Yes, should be mentioned - only if directly connected with Khalistan of course.
:THEIR DEATHS WERE CONNECTED WITH BHINDRAWALE AND KHALISTAN. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, provide sources. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Sikhs assassinated by conservative Sikhs

message: I added much of these tags.  Any such text without references can and should be removed.  
:Thanks for that. But why did you added them in the first place. Anmol.2k4 17:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a useful mechanism for allowing people to add sources.  I did actually as Zafarnamah to give sources for those points, but he hasn't got them yet.  We can remove them until we have sources. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "Citation Needed"/"((fact))"