Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 6

message: If as an anonymous user, you wish to move a page, you must request it on Wikipedia:Requested moves. You should under NO CIRCUMSTANCES merely copy and paste text into a new article. This results in a loss of history and is completely inappropriate. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 13:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent 'move' 

message: I've been requested to have a look at this festering dispute. I don't agree with both sides completely and I have a different solution. Please evaluate it carefully. I say this through my experience dealing with geographical entities.
* My understanding of Khalistan is that it is a geographic entity – a (proposed) region with borders. (-sthan = place)
# Under this presumption the article should deal with the geography, people and history. See List of unrecognized countries and try and model Khalistan on those lines.
# Details of the movement should be moved to "Khalistan movement" as it deals exclusively with it. The same should be summarised and added under the =History= section to this page with a  pointing to the Khalistan movement page.
# The movement is in a mess. Those quotes should be moved to q:wikiquote. 
Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with your contention, Sukh. We should have a go ahead with Nichalp's suggestion. --Andy123(talk) 19:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly disagree with your suggestion to use "List of unrecognized countries" as a model for Khalistan. In that list all the countries are ones with some type of control over their territory. Khalistan does not even come close to falling under this criteria. Their should be only one article on Khalistan Movement and no article on Khalistan. --Blacksun 19:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I agree with Blacksun here - we shouldn't completely model the article on a list of such "countries" (in fact, proposed states on List of active autonomist and secessionist movements appear to be the type of thing we're aiming for). However, I still feel that Nichalp is correct when he says the Khalistan article should deal with the geography, people and history of the area. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I again disagree. As far as I know their has never been a territory known as Khalistan. The regions that might fall under the proposed region of Khalistan already have their own articles. Their could be a geography section in the Khalistan movement that deals with this but to make a separate article entirely on this would be surely confusing. --Blacksun 05:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The territory known as Khalistan may have never existed on the ground, but it's undeniable that there are finite boundaries (linguistic) to the geographical area. Physical existance or not, we have to document the linguistic area in a neutral manner. Secondly, Khalistan is unrecognised, so are come of these countries I've listed. The difference between the two are the control over these territories. Please do not take it literally, I've given you some articles to have a look at based on the History, Geography and Culture (linguistic and religious culture) to author the Khalistan page. Only the political aspect needs to be appropriately modified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the proposed split. Perhaps it might be more effective to move this article to Khalistan movement and build a geographic article from scratch on this namespace? A map might be nice. The Tom 00:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is there to say on Khalistan, apart from the movement?? We already have History of Punjab and Punjabi people and Punjabi language and Sikhism and ..... we could always add a map to this page. If I remember right, the Dream encompassed Bihar and Maharashtra, on the premise of Nanded and Patna Sahib being located there. Please make a map (or several, if you wish) and add them. ImpuMozhi 02:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: From the Khalistan article: The boundaries of Khalistan include the present Indian state of Punjab and all Punjabi-speaking areas contiguous to its borders. Punjab as a region includes Punjab, Haryana, Pakistan & Indian Punjab and parts of Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan. In order of size it would be something like: Punjab > Khalistan > Punjab (Indian state) =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good example of how a non-issue blows up to something requiring admin intervention. I don't believe we should have a seperate Khalistan page and Khalistan Movement (although it did cross my mind yesterday), because a page for Khalistan that has limited details on the actual movement won't expand to a large size without just being another version of Punjab. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If despite having an article on Hinduism , we can have another on Hindutva-which is not a known religion or way of life. I think there can be a page on Khalistan as the movement for it caused a huge amount of pain to India as well as Punjab. And Khalistan did look at contigous areas outside Punjab. It is not to endorse the movement, or give it support, but ignoring it will not change history and it should have a page. Haphar 13:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad I can't remember the policy template but in Wikipedia you do not justify one thing with another bad example. --Blacksun 17:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Andy, it makes little sense as Khalistan movement is going to have most of the stuff that you would right in the Khalistan state that was proposed. LALALA I am out of this discussion - must stay away from Khalistan the blackhole that sucks all your time and gives nothing. --Blacksun 17:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad that a person fighting for removing/renaming one article does not do so on the other quoted, even if it is agreed to be a bad one. The point is that for one point of view Khalistan may be seen as a bad idea for an article, that does not neccecarily make the idea bad, it's just a point of view. Haphar 07:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you can't really compare Hinduism and Hindutva with Khalistan and Khalistan Movement, Hindutva is more a political ideology, it's very much based on current affairs relating to Hindus. But that's another topic. I don't honestly care what happens, it was an innocent proposition that I made and I haven't got my heart into it like some other anon users. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: Here's another (looks neutral) link that I found on pg 7 of the google search: . This also talks only about the movement -- Lost 14:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nichalp's opinion 

message: I know this is off-topic, but I'm currently on the list for requests for adminship (see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sukh) and I think people on this talk page might be interested in adding their comments (especially in light of the problems with this article and further discussion). If you support or oppose me, please do add your comments on the RfA page. Many thanks. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly-off topic! 

message: As suggested by Andy123, I came to this page to read earlier discussion, and to present my comments and views. I partly read the discussion, and find myself unable to offer comments. In fact, we have a system here (I mean in wikipedia) of arriving at a consensus, sometimes at the cost of truth! This system is really strange and most unencyclopedic in approach. As such, I am afraod that I shall not able to contribute anything to the discussion – at least now, may be after one more year of being around – in the third year of my wiki-life, I may be able to understand the “nitty-gritty” of such unusual policies and procedures, and shall find myself really equipped to offer cooments and suggestions. In any case, I find that after a page attains a semblance of encyclopedic content, its “demise” starts in many cases. --Bhadani 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ). I will devote much more time to this article when my exams are over (er, I should be revising now!). I've ordered some books to read which should no doubt help! I hope Blacksun isn't disillusioned because his feedback was constructive and with further input from Wikipedians we could make this into a good article. People just need to remember that there's two sides to every story, and the fact that the media were banned in Punjab does not make it any easier. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 17:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: My two pence

message: Please, dont use the word official in front of everything. It is like me linking to an article and saying "Official site of Blacksun" for my homepage. What is the point of saying official? Its a pretty silly ploy of making it sound significant and relevant. Also, once again I have removed links to questionable low quality sites. If you are interested in reading the specific reasonings dig in to the history. --Blacksun 21:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links again

message: Their is one section that says "Justifiaction for the attack" and another that says "Critique for the attack"...Notice that the critique section is a whole lot bigger and with much more info then the justification section....I mean just read this whole thing...Whoever made this is Pro Khalistan and its sad...LOL is this what the Gurus taught us? TO fight and seperate from each other? 71.107.54.199 09:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't agree with you more friend. I am yet to come across an article that is as biased as this one. 203.197.216.5 05:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You both are correct, this article is very biased and supports further disintegration of India. Feel free to edit it and make it WP:NPOV. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 05:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a rather disburbing article I must say; full of inaccuracies and POV nonsence. I would encourage all those who have objection to make edits in line with WP:NPOV. A bunch of traitors are constantly introducing POV nonsence. I have already started removing the nonsence and would encourage you all to do that as well. AnwarA 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This page is biased

message: I have changed "Khalistan is..." in the leadin section to "Khalistan was...". There is no longer anything as a "Khalistan is". It is a thing of the past...thankfully. AnwarA 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Khalistan is or Khalistan was

message: I have yet again removed POV nonsence on the killing of sikh youths after operation blue star. I was in Punjab myself at the time of of the operations. No such thing ever happened. Period. And even if it did, stated in isolation it would be like saying:
"The Americans soulders killed innocent hundreds of Muslim youths in Afganisthan and Iraq..." without stating why America had to attach Afganisthan and Iraq in the first place. 
Even a selective statement of facts may well be a misrepresation of facts.
So I suggest let me do the hunting for reliable and neutral sources and the leave the edits along till then. Simply quoting someone who published something in some part of the world does not amount to a valid citation. The most neutral book so far on the subject has been written by Mark Tully and Satish Jacob, who were both BBC reporters in India at the time of operation Blue Star. I will try to lay my hands on the book and if I find that the statement was indeed true, I would myself include it back. 
I have high regard for wikipedia and its NPOV policy. I wish to respect it always...but in its present form the article is far from NPOV. I will continue removing statements that appear POV.
AnwarA 02:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and on sources...can I quote some moolah appearing on the Al Jazira and state that September 11 attacks were justified and that the Americans deserved it, or the London bombings were justified because the Brits deserved it too? I don't think so! AnwarA 10:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So called academic sources

message: The status of the Sikhs as a third legitimate party to the sovereignty of British India, along with Hindus and Muslims, and the role played by the Sikhs to end British colonialism, are important factors that have contributed to the discourse on Khalistan. The Sikhs, who constituted about 1.1 percent of the population of British India,Singh, Iqbal, Punjab Under Siege: A Critical Analysis, New York: Allen, McMillan and Enderson, 1986, p. 33 played an arguably disproportionate role in the struggle to free the subcontinent of British colonialism. The table below summarises the Sikh contribution in the freedom movement. The data represents figures for those who served prison sentences, were deported to nearby islands in exile, faced capital punishment or enlisted in the Indian National Army, an armed militia that was organised by one section of Indian freedom fighters.
===Sikh involvement in Indian independence movement===
Type                   	All Communities	Sikhs 	Percentage
Prison term over 1-year	2,125          	1,550 	75%
Deported               	2,646          	2,147 	80%
Indian National Army   	20,000         	12,000	60%
:Source: Singh, Iqbal, Punjab Under Siege: A Critical Analysis, New York: Allen, McMillan and Enderson, 1986, p. 33
I just checked the source above and it gives the Death Sentence figures as 127, 92, 80%, respectively.138.49.98.53 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-independence : Sikh role against British colonialism in South Asia (1912-1947)

message: Type                   	All Communities	Sikhs 	Percentage
Prison term over 1-year	2,125          	1,550 	75%
Deported               	2,646          	2,147 	80%
Indian National Army   	20,000         	12,000	60%
:Source: Singh, Iqbal, Punjab Under Siege: A Critical Analysis, New York: Allen, McMillan and Enderson, 1986, p. 33
I just checked the source above and it gives the Death Sentence figures as 127, 92, 80%, respectively.138.49.98.53 20:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sikh involvement in [[Indian independence movement]]

message: The date cited appears to be correct: October 15, 1984. The article is accurate, so it will remain as a reference in the introduction. It is appended below, for those who don't have access to Lexis Nexis. If you had problems with a single point, you should not have reverted all the changes: your behavior was not civil. Zafarnamah 16:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you said you should not have reverted all the changes: your behavior was not civil. is a good example of hypocrisy. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 08:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a foolish claim is being made concerning K.P.S. Gill, a terrorist and a also convicted sex criminal. See Human Rights Watch's press release  regarding his terrorist activity and  concerning his conviction upheld by the Indian Supreme Court concerning his sexual violence against Rupan Deol Bajaj. I think you need to shop this hero-worship and start looking at the facts. Zafarnamah 19:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Christian Science Monitor Article

message: The article has come a long way to being factually-correct, so I have changed the tag to disputing its neutrality. If you know of any factually-incorrect statement, please discsuss it here.Zafarnamah 21:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV Tag

message: Oh dear ;) Well, I'm currently working on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Indic) so I haven't got time to work on this atm. Please people, control your urges to revert one another's edits. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again