Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 5

message: I came here via Wikipedia:Third opinion, and per the nature of that page, would like to offer my commentary.  This article is on a very worthy subject, but it is written in such a way as to be highly biased and virtually unreadable.  As an example of bias, consider the following sentence from the article:
::"The Indian army’s invasion of the Golden Temple, which is remembered as a ghalughara (holocaust) by Sikhs, claimed as many as “7,000 to 8,000” lives according to some eyewitness accounts."
Let's look at this piece by piece:
::"The Indian army’s invasion of the Golden Temple,"
Actually, I'd say this is fair.  "Invasion" can be a loaded word, but as a third-party observer, I'd say that it is warranted.
::"which is remembered as a ghalughara (holocaust) by Sikhs,"
Really?  All Sikhs?  Every last one of them?  Because that's essentially what this says, and it isn't true.  Sikhs aren't a monolithic, single-minded entity; various Sikhs doubtless have highly varied rememberences and opinions of the event.  Therefore, the sentence needs to be qualified.  You could say "a few Sikhs" or "some Sikhs" or "many Sikhs" or even "most Sikhs", depending on how widespred these opinions are in the Sikh community.  I, myself, obviously have no idea -- I just know that simply saying "Sikhs" is unacceptably broad, and cannot possibly be true.
::"claimed as many as “7,000 to 8,000” lives according to some eyewitness accounts."
This claim is sourced,which is good -- although who is making those claims is unclear from the sourcing, which is bad.  If I had the publication that is being referenced, I could figure it out, but lacking that publication, this crucial information is missing.  Meanwhile no other claims are presented, which is very bad.  Why only refer to some eyewitness accounts?  What about the rest of them?  What does the government of India say about it?  What does the United Nations say about it?  What have journalists, academic researchers, politicians, and so forth said about it?  Where a claim such as this one is highly contested, it is not Wikipedia's job to sort out "the truth".  Rather, the competing claims should be presented alongside each other, with the people or entities making the claims clearly identified.  Anything else is overly POV.
All of this is missing the larger point, which is that Operation Blue Star should really be detailed in its own article, with only a tangential mention in this one, as one of many factors that play into the desire to establish Khalistan.  Actually, at least half of the article should be merged into articles that are found here.  This would make the various disputed topics more contained, and greatly improve the article's overall readibility.  What remains of the article should be re-written in conformance with the NPOV techniques that I've described above. Skybum 04:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skybum, this is very useful and constructive feedback.  You should go through the rest of the article and point of similar rhetoric that can be modified or improved upon.  Earlier, this article was twice the size and we have made significant progress.  Right now, if we are to be successful, we should make the text as objective as possible and then we can worry about the length issue. Zafarnamah 23:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion offered

message: Is everyone in agreement that we can now unprotect the page and start editing?  However, to stop revert wars I think that if someone has a problem with someone elses edit, they should let it stand and what until a consensus forms on the talk page.  Is this good for all parties involved? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with the idea of forming a consensus before changes are made.  I recommend starting the our last consensus version before Anmol came to the scene. Zafarnamah 15:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refer to my concerns in the previous post.  You will find a very strong objection from me if emphasis is not made on measuring the present strength of the movement in terms of deaths and other violent incidents associated with it in comparison to when it was in its prime. I will not accept wikipedia to be used as grounds for any artificial inflation of a movement. Bye. --Blacksun 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a wiki.  Feel free to edit it as you please.  And as I mentioned above, deaths and violent incidents are definately a "measurement" of the movement, but they're not the only one. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Blacksun, I would be very interested in how you intend to make such calculations when Human Rights activists still haven't been able to quantify the number of people killed when the movement was at its peak. You need this number to make a comparison, don't you?  Zafarnamah 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite simply you include the official numbers and numbers given by various other groups.  It really does not matter as I am fairly certain whatever numbers you use, it will show the almost non-existance of the movement at present.  --Blacksun 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no official numbers calculated by any agency according to my knowledge. Zafarnamah 12:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect page 

message: Zafarnamah has issue with calling Bluestar the pinnacle of the Khalistan movement.  My understanding is that he feels this was more the starting point.  I think he is referring to the oft quoted opinion of Bhindranwale that he neither supports/does not support Khalistan, but if the Indian government attacks the Golden Temple, the foundation stone for Khalistan will be layed.  From that point of view, you can see how prior to the attack, there was a movement to correct perceived wrongs within India.  Afterwards, the more orthodox and extreme sections of the Sikh community believed they could not live in India and in that sense it was precipitated from this point.
What are other peoples opinons on this?  If everyone agrees with this, I'll change the introduction to reflect this view.  I think it's valid, although may seem a bit odd initially.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 21:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sukh, there is no other scholarly opinion on this matter, according to my knowledge.  Bhindrawale was not fighting for Khalistan. Zafarnamah 22:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culmination point of the movement 

message: I will trust you to neutralize the tone of this section further.  Their are many "recent developments" that sooth the feelings of many Sikhs.  For instance, the Indian government apologized for many of the actions of 1984 for the first time during the past few years.  This section, like the lead, should definitely inform the reader that normalcy has returned to the state. --Blacksun 17:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent developments

message: I think as we go through the article, we should remove all ibids and replace them with full references.  It prevents confusion and distortion if we move bits of text around.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 18:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibids 

message: Firstly "Hindu Marriage Act" dosnt mean that Indian govt. considers Sikhs as Hindus. Its just a name. Secondly this article doesnt mention the vicious anti-Hindu propoganda propogated in 1950's and 1960's by some Sikh leaders and also of selective ethnic cleansing of Punjabi Hindus from bordering districts like Amritsar and Gurudaspur.
  अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey  12:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's looking at the situation very simply.  I'm trying not to generalise, but it's well known that Sikhs indentified more with the Punjabi identity than Hindus did, and there was a constant effort by both Orthodox Sikhs and right-wing Hindus to split the two groups apart.  From that position, the wish for a Punjabi Suba was a wish for a Sikh-majority state masked as a Punjabi-speaking state.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, sharing of water thing is used in a very devious way in this article.  For instance, they have a citation to some environmental agency saying Punjab water levels are falling by 1 meter every year.  If you go to that site, you see that it is not only Punjab but also scores of other states like Haryana, Rajasthan, etc.  However, the way it is used it creates an impression that Haryana is stealing and exploiting Punjab and that is why its water levels are dropping.  The entire article is slanted with major violations of wikipedial POV guidelines.  However, I am not going to bother with all that - not enough energy. --Blacksun 19:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "They"?  Well it'd be best if we work on points such as that, instead of arguing over external links. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 19:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: What you say is true (indeed, the Khalistan cause is only prominent with the very orthodox Sikhs in the west, and they certainly don't comprise any sort of majority).  But the problem is getting reliable statistics that "measure" this level of support.  Nothing written in the article is wrong, per se, but it has its own slant and is not representative of all views.  There has been increasing discussion over the last few weeks which should hopefully help in cleaning it up. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is one long rant on why alleged Hindu "persecution" is responsible for Khalistan 

message: Sukh, i appreciate your efforts but this article is still more of a propoganda leaflet than any thing else. I have it on my watch list but i wont be able to make this article encyclopedic as Khalistan and Sikh politics are not my areas of interest. But still i have access to lots o books on Punjabi crisis i may help from time to time.
  अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey  10:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts and look forward to any of your contributions!  When I get time, I'm going to look at the points raised in Archive 4 and see if I can do anything about them.  But I'm short on time to research this at the moment.  Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 10:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by AMbroodEY 

message: I think the current lead gives an ok template of what the rest of the article should be:
*Talk about facts of the conflict - as in official count of people who died + unofficial estimate range
*Talk about various human right abuses charges against the army.
*Talk about various human right abuses chargest against the militants.  Dont try to whitewash this as wishywashy conspiracy propogated by the army.
*Talk about when and why the conflict lost its popularity.  Dedicate a few lines on how some minor organizations both in Punjab and abroad are still pursuing it.  Mention the apology made by the current govt. led by a Sikh prime minister but also mention that not many people in positions have been charged for the 84 riots.  
In short keep it encyclopedic and do not make it emotional. It should not be that hard in theory but well...
--Blacksun 21:28, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me.  But I will have difficulty in contributing a lot over the coming two months.  After that, I have time to devote many hours to this article. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 00:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What this article should be

message: There is no reference anywhere on this page to the fact that Sikhs made up approximately 30% of the troops of the Indian Army in the British period, and thus played a crucial role in sustaining the Raj. Many historians feel that this was important in sustaining and entrenching a sense of separate Sikh identity after the demise of Ranjit Singh's state. It is certainly more important than notional 'percentages' of Sikhs contributing to the Freedom movement (so, there were people counting the numbers on demonstrations were there)? There is also no reference to the fact that Punjab was governed by the loyalist Punjab Unionist Party, which included and represented Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims, until 1946. Until that date a common Punjabi identity was more important than religious sectarianism, until it was tragically shattered by Partition. I'm not going to comment on more contemporary political issues, but historically this article stinks. I suggest contributors read:
M. Imran Ali The Punjab under Imperialism 1885-1947 (Princeton University Press) 1988
Rajit K. Mazumder The Indian Army and the making of Punjab (Delhi: Permanent Black) 2003
Sir Penderel Moon Divide and Quit (Delhi: OUP) 2002 (1961)
Ian Talbot: Punjab and the Raj 1849-1947 (Delhi: Manohar) 1988
Ian Talbot Khizr Tiwana, The Punjab Unionist Party and the Partition of India (Karachi: OUP) 2002
Sikandarji 08:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Army

message: I had to delete the text that talked about the "attack" on the Golden Temple along with 37 Gurudwaras (Any more concrete sources available? It's the first I'm hearing of this), reason being that the article opens by giving the impression that the operation was unprovoked and random. It doesn't provide any information as to the background of the situation, especially concerning the actions of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale inside the Golden Temple. This article still needs vigorous NPOV'ing - I'm limited on time and so I will do what I can. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 11:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Paragraph 

message: What is meant by Punjabi state out of Punjab?
This statement itself gives away the hidden agenda of the people fighting for it. Can we have an English state by dividing England, or an Indian state by dividing India?
India means Indian state and Punjab means Punjabi state!!
The quote from the case presented to state reorganization committee says
"Punjabi-speaking province may give the Sikhs the needful security"
Doesn't it make clear the TRUE reason for partitioning Punjab once again (after partitioning it among Muslims and non-Muslims).
This partitioning of Punjab was intended for creating a Sikh majority state (or homeland), although initially it was to be within Indian union of states.
Nsdeonia 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute [ Linguistic issues cause civil unrest in Punjab]

message: Some Sikh leaders were trying to get a Sikh majority state under the false name of Punjabi state. Therefore, some Hindu leaders told Hindus to vote for Hindi as their mother tongue. This way Hindu majority areas become part of new states (Himachal and Haryana). While a Sikh majority (60% at that time), land became new Punjab.
This section mentions that Punjabi is not given high status because Sikhs speaks it is very ridiculous argument.
This section also quotes Hukam Singh of the Akali Dal “While others got States for their languages, we lost even our language."
Yes, we lost our language because we tried to create a Punjabi state out of Punjab, which is most stupid idea.
Nsdeonia 10:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute [ Many Hindus of Punjab reject Punjabi as their native language]