Talk:Jaswant Singh Khalra

message: Dear Gulguley,
You have questioned my actions in putting an unbalanced tag on this article - even though myself and RHB have given some of our reasons above. Please remember we are both experienced Wikipedia editors and are pretty familiar with how it works and how its policies/guidelines relate to articles.
I freely admit that I have next no knowledge of Indian culture/history and no knowledge of this person and their history. Therefore I am not qualified to add any information to this article, only to make sure it meets the standards required of Wikipedia.
Your main concern with my actions was that I added an unbalanced tag to this article. This tag is not used to say that the article is incorrect or unbalanced only that it MIGHT be. It is used in to gain attention of other editors to the article so that they can check if it is unbalanced, correct it if needed and then remove the tag. Likewise I added the Indian bio stub so that people interested in Indian biographies would come and help develop the article.
In terms of what specifically caused me to add the unbalanced tag I will use the first few lines as an example:
Sardar Jaswant Singh Khalra (1952-1995) is a martyr who fought for gaining justice for thousands of innocent Sikhs who were murdered by police in Punjab, India.
For starters these statements/facts are not sourced (please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for why and how we cite facts - all facts should be cited) - in particular if you say that people were murdered - this is highly controversial and needs to be backed up by firm sources. If it has not been proven that the people were murdered, then to be balanced (and follow WP:NPOV) it should say that this is an opinion/belief/theory - and back up with evidence in the form of references or link to an article that discusses the murdering.
Furthermore this is an encylopedia and should steer clear of subjective language. For example martyr is a highly subjective term - one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. To pick an extreme example - though Saddam Hussein may be considered a martyr to millions of people it is unlikely to be appropriate to describe him as such as if it were fact. Therefore it is often better to say that he is a martyr to these people (plus reference). P.S. In no way am I comparing with Saddam with this man except that they are both considered martyrs. 
This is why I put the unbalanced tag on - not because the information is incorrect - I have no idea if it is or not - but that it looks like that it might be stating opinion as fact, and these facts are not referenced. What needs to happen is other editors need to help out - separate any opinion from fact - reference all information - and then remove the unbalanced tag. Until then it is highly appropriate that the unbalanced tag stays. 
I hope that this all makes sense, and you can see my reasons come from wanting a top notch encyclopaedia, not from any bias of mine. I wish you well on your time in Wikipedia - and please feel free to contact me if there is anything I can help you with. Cheers Lethaniol 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Gulguley 

message: I have been waiting since the time you tagged this article as unbalanced for some other editor to come and add more information. Even though I had the information myself, I wanted someone else to note the article here in wikipedia and add information so that the condition to remove the "unbalanced tag" is satisfied. I think the condition has been satisfied now as some other author has come and added the information. Therefore, my request to you is to remove the unbalanced tag. Moreover, I think it is not justified to add such tags without complete knowledge of the history, facts and other information related to the subject matter. I might have not written a quality wikipage, but it certainly does not deserve such tagging. Please don't mind my words and ping me if you have further information. There can be no 2 views on oppression, the oppressor will always give a point of view which suits his/her selfish motives. If you read all the external links which have been added to this article till now, you will come to know that it has already been accepted that Jaswant Singh Khalra was kidnapped and murdered by the Police. It has also been proved that during the 1980s the were uncountable human rights violations committed against the Sikhs in India by the Government. Thousands and thousands of young men and even their parents were shot dead and their bodies were never even returned to their kins, in most of the cases police even did not tell whether a person was dead or alive. This is a long list of atrocities and I do not want to make the reply lengthy. In fact, what can be a second view on the killings of Jews by Hitler's Regime in the Nazi Germany? If Hitler's Regime is still in power, will you go and ask them of their views on why they killed the Jews? I see no justification in that. Moreover, I am shocked by the example that you are giving of Saddam Hussein in relation to Jaswant Singh Khalra. I respect your right to express your views my friend, but please read on the issue and history, I do not agree that if I do not understand an issue  it gives me the right to tag it as unbalanced. 
--A. S. Aulakh 21:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To: Lethaniol 

message: HI there,
The quote that has been added is way to long - please read up at Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources - needs to be deleted or significantly shortened. User:Lethaniol
Rep: Allright, I will work on summarizing the speech part. --A. S. Aulakh 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of Quotation 

message: I have replaced the article with the rewritten version from my sandbox. I also removed the maintenance tags; it is now reasonably well-referenced and unbiased, and certainly wikified. The new text replaces some excerpts from the speech—only those that directly pertain to to his goals, and give a first-person overview of his situation. 
I hope Sikh editors can appreciate that the article reads more smoothly and with less bias while preserving the essence of his message and his fate. I hope non-Sikh editors can appreciate the fact that I'm not Sikh either (and I hadn't the faintest idea who this guy was until I did the research for this rewrite) so I'm not biased toward the subject. The new version uses the proper inline citation format and I hope other editors will continue to use that when adding content in the future to avoid any more edit warring or intervention by third parties such as myself. 
I'm going to leave this page on my watchlist for a few more days to make sure there are no further issues. Thanks to everyone for their input. Kafziel Talk 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO you have done a great job Kafziel. Neutral point of view, wikified, inline citations and even links from other articles - a great start for a new article - if only they all started as such. I am sure there is more relevant information that needs to be expanded upon - but as long as people follow the tone of your work there should be no problem - especially if they make sure all the statements are fact are referenced and that it is neutrally written. Cheers Lethaniol 08:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Kudos!  I agree, this is great work Kafziel!. Thanks for the efforts and time you spent on this article.  A. S. AulakhTalk 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you like the rewrite Aulakh, and I would like to point out this is precisely how Wikipedia works. Some people write up a new article, it is identified by other users that it needs work and various tags may be added, then users who have the time/knowledge/experience come along and help update/revise/rewrite it. This process is always ongoing - and therefore the article will evolve though time. Normally the more editors involved the better the article gets. So have faith in the system Aulakh and you will do well in Wikipedia, because at the end of the day we are all striving for the same goal - a fantastic encyclopaedia free for the whole world to use. Cheers Lethaniol 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite completed

message: I've removed the following unsourced addition from the article:
He has been accused by some people of having been an overground worker of extremist organisations, Babbar Khalsa and Bhindranwala Tigers Force of Khalistan (BTFK).
I tried hard, but I can't find a single reliable source putting this claim forward. The only thing I could come up with was a comment on a Yahoo! message board. That's all. If there are valid sources for this, please present them. Kafziel Talk 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babbar Khalsa 

message: Clearly, there are those who see this individual as a crusader against abuse, and those who disagree.  Please do not wp:edit war.  Please discuss the dispute here, and if needed pursue wp:conflict resolution.  Please do not kill one another's sources...
*If a link is dead, please use the  tag on it.
*If a source is a bad source, please either tag it  and/or .
*If a source added clearly fails wp:RS but is an adequate wp:EL, please consider placing it in the wp:EL sections, rather than discarding it.
*If it simply must go, please bring it here to the talk page and explain.  This is so much kinder than just destroying.
*Please use informative wp:edit summaries
- sinneed (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PoV 

message: From what I gather from the above conversations, the neutrality of this entry is no longer disputed. What needs to be done to have the neutrality dispute flag removed from the page? Is there a technicality here that is preventing it from being removed, or are there still questions about the neutrality that need to be addressed? 
I just updated the citations on the page and cleaned it up a bit (particularly the last section, which was redundant and didn't make much sense) and would like to improve the neutrality of the page as well. Thanks!
--Seattlegirl27 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Still Disputed? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jaswant Singh Khalra. 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/20071017113415/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200071998?open&of=ENG-IND to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200071998?open&of=ENG-IND
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) 21:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi User:Harmanprtjhj you have reverted my edit without stating any reason or source. I had removed this following WP:V policy, you are welcome to re-add the content with a reliable source that supports the said claims, but do not simply ad back such controversial claims that are not backed up by any reliable source. see WP:RS. Please follow  WP:BURDEN that states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". now please self revert and remove the siad claim until you find a reliable source for this. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In your world Taylor & Francis are not WP:RS however in actual world they are very reliable source. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Harmanprtjhj You have already been warned about WP:NPA kindly do not use condescending language such as the one you used above. This comment was written when you had reverted without adding a source. You had added the source later on here--DBigXrayᗙ 21:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You made your message at 21:26 and you had at least 15 minutes to update your note here yet you didn't until I called on. Were you waiting for others to revert me without reading or later justify your edit by citing that I didnt joined this unnecessary discussion? You better know not to remove long term information when you can easily find sources. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: see WP:AGF. Please read WP:BURDEN and familiarize yourself with WP:V controversial information that are not adequately sourced can be removed immediately. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  25000 deaths