Talk:Khalistan

Casualty count incorrect

The section on the 182 incident states that 329 Canadian civilians were killed. This is incorrect as the nationalities of all 329 victims were not Canadian. Nordrassor (talk) 04:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Serious overhaul and expansion needed

Hello,

Why is there no sections on the following: Culture Economy Demographics Education Flora and Fauna The proposed currency and many other sections?

Mik357 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A Sikh ie a religious based state??

Cannot be based on secular egalitarian or idealistic principles because of the very obvious nature of being a state based on a religious fundamentalist concept. So I have removed those term for obvious reasons.

Included - Yet it remains unclear if Muslims, Christians or Hindus would be allowed freedom of expression of faith in a 'Sikh' based state. Khalistan has limited support from Sikhs in North America, Australia and UK. Previous supporters included congressman Dan Burton.

Reply

The Sikh state that existed until 1849 when annexed by Britain allowed Hindus , Muslims and Christians full religious freedom and many held high office. There is no reason why this should not happen again.

It was not a Theocratic state then when under British rule and jurisdiction or after when the British left.

Theocracy i.e a religious state is based on religious controls and religious fundamental principles NOT secular values.

Sikhs showed considerable restraint when Sikhs were murdered in Delhi 1984 by the Congress Party is that the actions of Secular Country? No Hindus were attacked in the Punjab. That shows who is secular —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhls (talk • contribs) 19:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-Sikhs were killed indiscriminately before 1984 and after 1984 by various khalistani terrorist groups which are now banned by the United States and Europe, best example is www.flight182.com

Indian intelligence (RAW) in a book by MK Dar state that they created the conditions for conflict and carried out acts of terror on their own people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhls (talk • contribs) 07:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's M K Dhar, not "MK Dar", and the book is called Open Secrets. India's Intelligence Unveiled. The book doesn't state what you claim. It talks about the terrorist acts of Khalistani militants, and Indian Government's over-the-top response to it. Dhar talks about how the Sikh secessionists planned terrorist attacks, and how the Indian forces (which included some Sihks also) killed some innocent civilians while responding to these attacks.

The Khalistani sites completely whitewash all kinds of terrorist attacks committed by the Khalistani terrorist groups. The Indians at least accept that there were civilian causalties during counter-terrorism operations.

The problem with you Khalistanis living abroad is that you're completely out of touch with the situation in Punjab and the events of 1980s. You all have been brainwashed by the propaganda of highly biased Khalistani sites and books, which conviniently ignore all the atrocities committed by the Khalistanis on Punjabis, but keep ranting about the misdoings from the Indian nationalist side. Try to give up your prejudices and get some knowledge about the happenings of 1980s from non-biased sources. The events were unfortunate, but there is no use revising history, and trying to project the Khalistan movement as a great struggle without any terrorist activities. Several Khalistani groups committed highly deplorable terrorist acts, and your "No Hindus were attacked in the Punjab" argument is completely bullshit. In 1947, Ludhiana District was the only district in entire British India (incuding Pakistan), which had Sikhs in majority. Sikhs and Hindus lived peacefully, and loved and respected each otehr. But the Khalistani terrorists drove out all the Hindus from the Indian Punjab (which is now a Sikh majority state). Sikhs in India do not want a Pakistani-like nation ruled by religious extremists. They want to live peacefuly with Hindus and others. Nobody likes brainwashed religious fundamentalists and that's why there is no Khalistan yet 203.158.89.10 (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Indira Gandhi and her son Sanjay started the trouble in the Punjab in revenge for the Akalis helping the opposition parties bring her down in the Emergency. The BJP have written about this at length and even the Indian Police officers say that guns were supplied by them. Only in South America or Cambodia has a country killed so many of its citizens more than India. Sikhs and non Sikhs will continue to raise the issues of intolerance in India against minorities no matter how worked up you get about it. (PS why do you always delete the Amnesty and HRW reports ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhls (talk • contribs) 18:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

India: Time to Deliver Justice for Atrocities in Punjab

Investigate and Prosecute Perpetrators of ‘Disappearances’ and Killings

Human Rights Watch Report

(Delhi, October 18, 2007) – The Indian government must take concrete steps to hold accountable members of its security forces who killed, “disappeared,” and tortured thousands of Sikhs during its counterinsurgency campaign in the Punjab, Human Rights Watch and Ensaaf said in a new report released today.

Response:

If you were not around at the time please either stop fabricating things or listing articles based solely on propaganda, please present the facts.

Response;

So you call Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch 'fabricating evidence', even the Indian Media use them as a source of information. These organisations are respected worldwide, obviously the truth hurts.There will be justice for the Sikh killed.

Response from third member;

Do we even have to show facts? India didn't allow any news reporters in India during this time, isn't that enough? Fabricating evidence? There are enough evidence of personal eye-witness stories of older women in India stating how there daughter got raped or there husband was burned with a tire around there neck. As for propoganda, India is an embarrassement, stating that "Hindus were scared that Sikhs might hurt them in response". India is a joke of a nation, they need a political change as soon as possible.

Response from fourth member; Dear Friend, In india there are 87 crore hindus today..81% of total population. So we dont need to be scared by any minority. Sikhs r only 2% of total population..y we scared from them? please advice me. Other thing, in 84 5000 sikhs were killed..and there were hindus who saved a lots of sikhs..if they wont at that time..u will find 10000 more dead bodies in delhi only..so before telling hindus think wat u r saying..hindus r those who saved life of sikhs...Because India is democracy..u can start khalistan movement ..becoz india is secular u can tell india joke..try to do it in pakistan or china..next second u will be killed by the dictactor..so respect wat u got..India is for all..Hindus r very nice ..otherwise u wont find urself alive in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.1.34 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

BBC Coverage of Sikh Violence against Non Sikhs

Here you will see footage of the BBC report of Khalisthan Religious violence

[1]

You can't spell. Why have you missed out the Indians killing Sikhs in 1984?

Because the violence began with religious sikh fanatics killing innocent women and children who were non-sikh, and i stress again the word 'began'

What about your fanatics they stated killing minorities from 1947 and are still doing it Gujarat 2003 , aoydhya etc ,1978, 1984 attacks on Sikhs are examples, attacks on Sikhs started then even though they had saved thousands of hindus during partition and before. During non violent demonstations in the 60's even Sikh children were killed by a communal police force, so learn some history before coming out with rubbish. Again in the Pakistan wars and China it was the Sikhs the Indian Government begged for help when your own soldiers ran away.You lot would have starved to death if it was not for the wheat from the Punjab —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhls (talk • contribs) 06:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wheat?? Hell, who needs wheat, India can buy wheat from Pakistan or USA if it wants to. But Sikhs need the Indian Economy for jobs otherwise the Jatts will be committing suicide cos they cant make a living anymore, at least be thankful you get jobs in Government posts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.59.130 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you realize what you just said. At least be thankful Sikhs get jobs? Most Sikhs in India are farmers, a job that doesn't require the government. And how will you buy agricultural products from Pakistan if they get their supplies from Punjab. As for government posts-Sikhs are 20% of the Indian army but only 1.9% of the population. Maybe you should be more thankful. and how can you say jatts will be committing suicide for lack of jobs, Punjab has the lowest poverty rate in India. By the way your post is littered with random capitalization and it seems you simply ignored wikipedia's spell check function for good measure. Why don't you learn English and stop being bitter about Sikhs? 76.112.20.78 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Profitoftruth85

bad sources

The following names have been removed for the same as above (Other supporters include Dan Burton, Jesse Helms, Lord Avebury & Edolphus Towns)

A request for User:Sunnybondsinghjalwehra

Dear Lovepreet Singh,

I admire your enthusiam for Punjab and Sikhism.

I note you were born in 1994. You have not lived through the times being described, and have heard/read about them through mainly sources with a specific perspective.

I urge you to study the Gurbani directly, in Punjabi, if possible. Also I urge you to find and read newspapers, from Punjab and around the world, published during the time these events took place. I am confident that you will agree with me and some of the others.

Wikipedia articles should be unbiased and not based on personal views.

However let me say something to you personally. Sikhism is a religion of brotherhood and accomodation. When Guru Arjun Dev compiled the Adi Granth, he included works of many non-Sikhs (Sikh Bhagats). Punjab has always been mixed, and Punjabis have traditionally respected each other. Lovepreet, a lot of innocent blood has ben shed in Punjab. Brotherhood has returned to Punjab. Please let it flourish.

I request you not to remove well documented facts from the article.--ISKapoor (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear I.S. Kapoor,

I may have no been born then, but I have come to know about everything with the help of some sites like saintsoldiers.net, neverforget84.com etc. And I think you don't know that more than a million Sikhs were killed, raped by Fanatical Hindus etc. And NONE has been brought to justice till date. And those killings of innocent Hindus were done by Black Cats aka Alam Sena. These were criminals recruited by the government and police officers, as SPO's (special police officers).. There job was mainly to lessen the big amount of support for Khalistan. And they succied. What they did was looting innocents, killing Hindus in busses, extortion, rape, looting weddings, etc. One of the latest examples of how Sikhs are 2nd class is the killing of 38 Sikhs in Chattisinghpora. I will support Khalistan till I live. Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Lovepreet Singh,

I hope you live a long time, and strive for truth, dharma and the Panth. The Panth of Guru Nanak and Gobind Singh; not that of Max Arthur Macauliffe and Maqbool Butt. May I ask this:

• Why do you think government of India is/was against Sikhs? Is it a Hindu government? Are Hindus against Sikhs?
• Why do you think Sikhs have been 2nd class citizens in India?
• Why do you think Sikhs in Chittisinghpura massacre were killed by Hindus/government?

--ISKapoor (talk) 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I find it totally ironic that teenagers who spew out bullshit when they have no experience of living in the eighties and what was behind such terrorist acts like flight182 find it somewhat easy to describe events they have no knowledge of.

If they are desperate to have an independant religious state, then they should relinquish their US or UK Citizenship with immediate effect, but they wont because of double standards.

The reasons they (khalistani terrorists) cry foul repeatedly is because they want to live in some mad religious utopian theocratic lunatic state run by lunatics with no knowledge of business, economics, health, education or technology. Such lunatic religious states (as history has shown) end up with starved citiziens despearte to leave.

If Sikhism is not a religion of tolerance and understanding but one based on divisions and hate then its no longer a religion.

So the killing of Muslims in Gujrat 2003 and many other places,Sikhs in 1984, Christians, low caste Hindus, Left wingers, Naxalites was all done by secular saints?

A state based on religion and eventual anarchy as seen during the eighties led many Sikhs especially rural Jatts to shift away from the Khalistani mentality when their own daughters were humped while giving terrorists refuge.

These were normally Indian Police who went around trying to dicredit the Sikhs, only India could do this to their own citizens. Many policeman are know coming out and saying this a few have been convicted but it far to slow.

Huh?? What are those points?? Sikhs marriages are written as Hindu marriages?? Whereas Pakistan with a 315 lesser Sikh population has accepted the Sikh marriage act. But still India is ignorant. And did you ever heard about Operation Shudhee Karan?? NO... Then just don't talk.

Just read the book Soft Target and get ur facts straight. And ofr your information it was not written by any Pro-Khalistani. Thanks very much. Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the Sikh prime minister of India introduce a bill for the Sikh marriage act? Everybody with an iota of brain knows that "Operation Shudhee Karan" is an imaginary story invented by Khalistani terrorists to create rift between the Hindus and the Sikhs. It doesn't find any mention in mainstream newspapers (Indian or international); only Khalistani sites and print keep spreading lies. Except the Khalistanis, everybody considers the book "Soft Target" as a sensationalist consipracy theory devised to make quick bucks. It was written in 1987 and has already been proved wrong because after the book was published, Inderjit Singh Reyat accepted that he played part in the bombing. His trial was free and fair, and was conducted outside India, in Canada. The judges were not Hindus or Indians. Reyat pleaded guilty and was jailed, proving Soft Target conspiracy theory wrong. If you don't have anything to discuss about the article, please don't troll here trying to create rift between Hindus and Sikhs. We want to live peacefully here in India. Go and create a Khalistan in Canada or Switzerland. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 05:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

SEMI-PROTECT

I want that the admins semi-protect this page... Because there are too many pov edits by ips like 91.192.59.145. Please do as soon as possible. Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree this is Sikh topic , to many Indian nationalist, Congress Party POV's. They even call independent information from Amnesty International and HRW 'propoganda'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.244.27 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC) lovely singh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.187.68 (talk) 09:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Summary of edits on Jan 16, 07

• Changed the description of book Soft Target from written by journalist to conspiracy theorist. The book never deals with hard facts (although it claims to be so) and makes allegations based on rumors and unproved facts. However I must state that the writers are indeed journalists, but to state that the book is written by journalst would mislead an average user to believe that govt. of India had staged the cowradly terror attack.
• Removed certain references which are questionable as to their neutrality and verifiability. Editors can refer to WP:V

http://www.singhsabha.com/sikh_national_anthem.htm refers to a personal views of Dr. Harjinder Singh Dilgeer about sikh anthem it nowhere deals with Khalistan's National anthem. I have not removed the http://www.khalistan.net reference as it has been adequately specified in the article that the source has been used to verify what the owner of the site has stated.

• Minor grammatical corrections.

LegalEagle (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

LegalEagle, why did you tag the Canadian journalists as "conspiracy theorists"? I'm challenging this act from you. Please write a critical review of the work by Brian McAndrew et al and prove your claim by publishing it on a credible platform. --Roadahead (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Road, thank you for your question on the veracity or verifiability of my assertion on the two journalists being conspiracy theorist. I believe that we would agree that conspiracy theory can be described as to indicate 'a narrative genre that includes a broad selection of arguments for the existence of grand conspiracies, any of which might have far-reaching social and political implications if true' (when I had earlier replaced the term journalist with conspiracy theorist, I had used the above understanding of the term conspiracy theory for the purpose. So I would be happy to know if you have any other description of conspiracy theory in mind). The book in question was first publishen in 1989 titled Soft Target: India's Intelligence Service and its Role in the Air India Disaster, in 2005 it was republished as Soft Target: How the Indian Intelligence Service Penetrated Canada. A wikipedian has reviewed the book as a piece of 'investigative journalism work', while Google has quoted the book as 'A provocative look', the book claims that Reyat (one of the accused who pleaded guilty) is a Indian agent, Parmar is also an Indian agent who was killed in a staged encounter by the Indian intelligence agencies <page - XIII>, the book also aleges that Samra who was convicted of two murders at Ontario SC is also an Indian agent <page - XI>, after calling everyone an indian agent the authors go a step further to claim that on evidences gathered from a book written by MK Dhar a retired official of R&AW and from unnamed sources from CSIS establishment it seems that indian agencies had penetrated each nook and corner of the canadian sikh society. The claim would seem to be highly improbable to any reader, as Canada being thousand of miles away from India it would be hard to press adequate manpower required to monitor a large group of people, however let us consider for a moment that R&AW was indeed able to penetrate the millitant organisation but does this surise alone suffice to prove that Indian inteligence agencies have a hand in the Air India Flight 182 disaster. Zuhair Kashmeri & Brian McAndrew would have us belive that this bombing was a False flag operation whose sole aim was to malign canadian sikhs. The authors time and again cite Pat Olson and Fred Gibson (which are pseudonyms) who used to work for Canadian intelligence agencies, thus the verifiability of such assertion is zero (olson and gibson could easily be zuhair and brian, but this is again my conspiracy theory ;)). The motif that the book follows is strikingly siilar to those published in wake of 9/11 attacks like 9/11: The Big Lie, The CIA and September 11, The New Pearl Harbor etc, which accuses the Bush administration to destroy WTC so as to fuel a war in afganistan and iraq. In the book Soft Target authors claim that few high profile indian individuals skipped Flight 182, quite strikingly in the conspiracy theories relating to Jewish hand in 9/11 it has been stated that 4,000 Jewish employees skipped work at the WTC on September 11. While the later assumption is dismissed as conspiracy and hoax people find it harder to digest that some indian diplomat had cancelled his trip on the ill fated plane (even though this piece of info is also unreliable). Thus the entire reasonings made by Zuhair and Brian has very little solid evidenvce to prove R&AWs complicity in the AI Flight 182 disaster, the links all depended on vague hypotheises forwarded by millitant sikhs, olson and gibson, and a highly fertile mind drawing upon ideas from the conpiracy genre. Thus such an approach which depends on surmises and shaky hypothesis to allege the security and intelligence agencies of a country to perpetrate a cowardly and dastardly act on its own citizens and others would tantamount to nothing but conspiracy theory. Thus if we call Zuhair and Brian journalist while referring them as writers of the book Soft target we should also start calling holocaust deniers as investigative writers/scholars/researchers.

I would thus request Road to reconsider his decision about reverting from conspiracy theorist to journalist. Awaiting your response.LegalEagle (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

COMPLETELY WRONG!! You know noting about Sikh religion. If the Khalistan is a Sikh theocratic then the national anthem will be the same as of the Sikh Anthem. It will be either Deh SHiva Bar Mohe or Deg-o-Tegh-o-FatehSunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi sunny I presume you referred to my edits when you wrote about sikh anthem being khalistan's national anthem. i definitely acquise to your logic that in a theocracy religious songs can become national anthem and if i further follow your logic about khalistan being a theocracy then i must admit that sikh devotional songs can become national anthem of khalistan. But then i would propose that we remove the reference of khalistan being a state based on theocratic- democratic principles, as what I know from my scant knowledge of Political science that theocracy and democracy are hard to mix. Awaiting reply. LegalEagle (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)re

Zuhair Kashmeri book

The article says:

Two of the accused in the case, the Sikh separatists Ripudaman Singh Malik and Ajaib Singh Bagri were found not guilty and released, while a third accused Inderjit Singh Reyat was sentenced to ten years after pleading guilty. A 1989 book by Canadian journalists Zuhair Kashmeri and Brian McAndrew state that the Government of India could have staged the attack to portray the separatists in bad light.

The theory of Zuhair Kashmeri was address by the the official "Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182" (see Commission of Inquiry into the Investigation of the Bombing of Air India Flight 182 TERRORISM, INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT – CANADA’S RESPONSE TO SIKH TERRORISM http://www.majorcomm.ca/documents/dossier2_ENG.pdf DOSSIER 2)

They concluded that:

"Talwinder Singh Parmar was the leader of the Babbar Khalsa, a pro-Khalistan organization at the heart of radical extremism, and it is now believed that he was the leader of the conspiracy to bomb Air India flights."

and that

"the RCMP again indicated that it possessed no evidence to support the theory that the Government of India was involved in the Air India bombing."

The dossier mentions that extensive conversations were taped and translated, however by the time of the trial, the tapes had been erased because of some procedural mistake, making the evidence inadmissable.

In any case, there is nothing to support the Zuhair Kashmiri conspiracy theory.

--Vikramsingh (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I see Vikramsingh has created articles covering sects and people that have a deep hatred for Sikhs such as the Nirankaris who in a terror attack in Amritsar 1978 killed 13 Sikhs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhls (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Lovepreet: Truth is that it was a group of Damdami Taksal/Akhand Kirtani Jatha that arrived at where Nirankaris were meeting (inspite of police trying to stop them), and attack was made on Nirankari Baba. His guards responded by opening fire. Eventually, as you know they manged to kill baba.

You or I may not like the Nirankaris believe in. But they have freedom to practice their faith. Guru Tegh Bahadur sacrificed himself so that Hindus can practice their faith:

ਹਰੀਕ੍ਰਿਸਨ ਤਿਨ ਕੇ ਸੁਤ ਵਏ ॥ ਤਿਨ ਤੇ ਤੇਗ ਬਹਾਦਰ ਭਏ ॥੧੨॥

ਤਿਲਕ ਜੰਵੂ ਰਾਖਾ ਪ੍ਰਭ ਤਾ ਕਾ ॥ ਕੀਨੋ ਬਡੋ ਕਲੂ ਮਹਿ ਸਾਕਾ ॥

ਸਾਧਨ ਹੇਤਿ ਇਤੀ ਜਿਨਿ ਕਰੀ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸੀ ਨ ਉਚਰੀ ॥੧੩॥

ਧਰਮ ਹੇਤਿ ਸਾਕਾ ਜਿਨਿ ਕੀਆ ॥ ਸੀਸੁ ਦੀਆ ਪਰ ਸਿਰਰੁ ਨ ਦੀਆ ॥(Guru Gobind Singhji wrote this)

--ISKapoor (talk) 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I now understand why he makes comments against Sikhs. People --- Jagat Narain Baba Bhaniara Gurbachan Singh—Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhls (talk • contribs) 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely we can fathom ones interest and tastes from his edits in wikipedia, but from the reasonable arguements and evidences forwarded by Vikram it seems it would be wrong to question his motives as being anti sikh. LegalEagle (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

People brainwashed with Khalistani propaganda have a habit of calling anybody with a Nirankari name as "anti-Sikh". This only shows their deep-rooted hatred for other religions, and proves that Khalistan of their dreams will be a nation where all the non-Sikhs will be killed. 203.158.89.10 (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

yes, these khalisthanis can never be trusted, if their own Nirankaris are 'anti-sikh' then the fate of muslims, christians, hindus is obvious. I have seen people like Sunnybondsinghjalwehra actively supporting terrorism on the net and should be brought to legal attention by law enforcement authorities in Belgium and United States

Why do high castes and low castes fight against each other?, the Dalits have taken control of UP and say they will teach the high castes a lesson. The same is true in Bihar and Bengal where left wing Naxalites are fighting the high castes.

South Indian Dravidians say they face discrimination from North Indian Aryans because they oppose Hindi and are dark skinned. Hindi.

I suppose people like Modi, Tytler and Bhagat are your heroes.

The UK , EU and USA will arrest and convict anybody involved in torture extra juidicial killings, genocide no matter where they have done it.

Dear all, this is not a discussion page to talk about the Nirakarnis and sikh, this discussion should strictly pertain to issues relating to Khalistan. So in future stick to issues abt the topic. LegalEagle (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've semi-protected this page for 1 week, as some users are indulging in unnecessary revert wars. Also, please use this page to discuss issues related to the article, not to badmouth Hindus or Sikhs. Wikipedia is not a chat room. utcursch | talk 07:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Congress Party Involvement in Terrorism

People need to be held accountable for terror in the Punjab belonging to the Congress party as stated by the BJP. The BJP also state that Congress created the LTTE of Sri Lanka.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/BJP_rallies_behind_Advani_hits_back_at_Congress/articleshow/2901845.cms —Preceding unsigned comment added by Singhls (talk • contribs) 19:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Etymology?

Why was the etymology of the word Khalistan removed? Khalistan is derived from the Arabic word khaalis خالص (pure) and the Persian word stan ستان (land). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.246.80 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of "unverified" tag?

The unverified tag has been up since late 2007. The article now has 17 footnotes, most of them from reputable sources. Does anyone object to removing the "unverified" tag? Sections of this article may be prone to NPOV issues, but at least there are a goodly number of cited references. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Op blue star help

Hi, I and one of my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of bias on a controversial topic Operation Blue Star, the summary of dispute can be found at [2], please let us know your views so that we can solve the dispute amicably. Thanks LegalEagle (talk) 02:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To repeat myself

1. khalistan.net is not a reliable source. It is a religious and nationalist website advocating the Khalistan separatist movement and the fight against "the terrorism and tyranny of the Indian state." Additionally there are fringe theories presented, such as an alleged "Sikh Holocaust". I can bring this to the reliable sources noticeboard if you insist, but I do not think that you will be happy with the results.
2. The Kapur article, from an actual academic journal (I would love it you made use of these!), defines the Khalistan as a "Sikh theocratic homeland." Even if you do consider khalistan.net a reliable source, I've yet to see a good case for removing the Kapur reference. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Article added that referes to Khalistan and Theocratic and Democratic. The 1984 riots were not a fringe theory (no less than a Sikh Holocaust according to some.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/oct/18/india.randeepramesh) and there are numerous reports on the cover up and findings of the Nanavati Commission. In the entire history of Sikhism there has not been one case of a Theocratic state. To understand this one must look at the "Miri-Piri" concept. A good example is England that has a democracy but is a christian country and has theocratic representatives in the house of Lords (Upper House). So it is possible to have a Democracy with some Theocratic representation (Spiritual and Temporal).--Sikh-history (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no reference to a "Holocaust" on that page, much less any suggestion that this term is favored by groups outside of the fringe. Khalistan.net still does not qualify as an RS.

Just a note about the home.comcast.net reference... it does not say that the proposed government will be "theocratic-democratic," but actually attests to a conflict of "theocracy vs. democracy": "In these two narratives, both the form of governance posed for this state (e.g., theocracy vs. democracy) and its name (Sikhistan, Khalistan) vary."

As such, it is very much original research for us to interpret this as a combination, "theocratic-democratic."

Furthermore, it remains unacceptable that you continue to remove the Kapur source. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you are being silly over a word. For the people killed it was indeed a holocaust http://www.thewidowcolony.com/pdfs/SikhNN_Article-TWC.pdf. As I recall a BBC report described the massacre at Trilokpuri as a holocaust. Infact your own favourite JSTOR describes it as a holocaust. Maybe it being described as Kristallnacht may ring a bell? Please try reading some history and understanding it.

Also try reading the narrative in the article and understanding it. What it says is that Khalistan could either be a democracy or a theocracy. I have suggested that this could be interpreted as something along the same lines as that of teh House of Lord, where theocracy is withing the democratic ideal.What you have said is that it is just a theocracy, something historically and factually incorrect. --Sikh-history (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The word is not actually the most important issue to me. The main issue is that an activist website for an extremist/separatist group cannot be the basis for the "facts" about the topic on Wikipedia. If it is true that notable members of the movement actually host the website, we may be able to cite their opinion where deemed strictly appropriate, but please do not attempt to base any significant description within the article around their claims, thanks. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I have not only refuted you argument on the use of the word holocaust but destroyed it by using verifiable sources. STOP changing the debate. Using the word "holocaust" does not make it a fringe site.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis and cherry-picking

With regard to Roadahead's addition of the Extension of Remarks from a congressional record, please do not synthesize "theocratic-democratic" by taking a source for "democratic" and hyphenating it to a differently sourced "theocratic." Furthermore, a politician's opinion cannot be placed at the same level as academic sources (the latter often attest to theocratic without mention of democratic). I find it amusing that you have decided to cherry-pick from this obviously inappropriate source given your apparent opposition to cherry-picking in the past. Why the inconsistency? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That source was added because a third notable person (a senator) had acknowledged the fact that the activists of the so called "Khalistan" are proposing it to be democratically based. Obviously, the senator and/or the proponents of Khalistan are not publishing academic journals. Its their claim and its their opinion what they want to implement in the state that they propose. The addition of this source, in fact, is not example of "cherry picking" activity like you are trying to link to my earlier addition of tag. In this case, the hunt was to find out if there is some other "non-khalistani" document that notes if the proposed state by the proponents will have democracy (according to the proponents); and the source I added served that purpose. Let me know if you still feel this is a cherry picking act. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As you haven't refuted the idea of it being cherry-picking, of course I still consider it cherry picking. You probably will not ever refute it, so long as most reliable sources prefer "theocratic," not "democratic." Understand this now as several issues:

• Synthesis - I particularly oppose that it is being combined to the Kapur reference to synthesize "theocratic-democratic." If some people say "theocratic" (academics and most reliable sources), then we can mention that; if others (activists and associated politicians) say "democratic," we can give them their own space. But do not combine the two to create a new conclusion "theocratic-democratic."
• Reliability - Furthermore, as academic assessment trumps activist outlets and politicians lobbying in favor of the cause (and using 'spin' in great departure from academic assessments), we should use Kapur and similar sources to establish the basic narrative, and allow the less reliable opinions their own treatment at a lower level of prominence in the article. It is unfortunate that some would fight against reliable sources, or place less reliable sources at the same level.
• Undue weight - I can understand the "hunt" for other views, but to then place these few findings (generally not of academic reliability) at the same level as the opposing narrative provided by most reliable sources is WP:UNDUE and cherry picking. Our narrative should be the same as the mainstream narrative of reliable sources, with minority views and unreliable view being given less prominence than the central narrative.

Realize this: so long as most reliable sources are contrary to the picture you and others are trying to present, your attempts to elevate your preferred narrative will be illegitimate. Perhaps because original research was involved, or unreliable sources were introduced, or undue weight was placed upon certain views, but no matter what the fault, policy will continue to support the mainstream narrative of reliable sources. Continuing to aggressively and persistently work against this narrative on Wikipedia will eventually collapse, even if many good editors are driven away and the conflict drags on long, but the ultimate failure of those who work against policy is rather certain, and you will likely not appreciate the consequences you will face. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

67.194.202.113, Feel free to separate the "theocratic-democratic" statement. Yes, I've already refuted your allegation of cherry-picking on my addition of congressional record as a source of democratic Khalistan claim by proponents. Once again, I went onto searching a third party document because another editor expressed concern that we should look for another reliable document which mentions the claim of the proponents of Khalistan. I feel you are mis-understanding what "cherry picking" means. For instance, if I go ahead and search claims by "Ajrawat" and "Gurmit Singh Aulakh" it will not be called cherry picking as they are notable individuals on Khalistan. Instead, this is called searching for specific notable information. ...and no, it is not WP:UNDUE either, because both these individuals are duely noted for their involvement in lobbying and working for Khalistan. Let me try to make my view further clear if its still not. The Khalistan proponents such Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh are more notable on the claims of implementation of proposed policies in proposed Khalistan than any academic. Now that does not mean that the academics are not worth noting, but that the claimers of Khalistan like Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh who even represented Khalistan at UNPO are more notable on proposed claims. Think this - Mr G is going to build a house named G-villa, and Mr G proclaims - "I am going to color my house all green inside". Then some Mr K writes a paper and states briefly in some line somewhere -"G-Villa will have blue color inside". Here, despite the fact that Mr K may have a Ph. D., Mr G is more notable because its him who is proposing building G-Villa and coloring the walls of his house. At some point, if the "G-Villa" is started by Mr. G, its him who will be responsible for implementing what he claimed earlier, not Mr. K. The proposed Khalistan is a political claim by politicians and proponents of Khalistan, its not a scientific theorem or research that academics become more notable over politicians and academicians. The congressional records are reliable sources and they can be used to state that the proposed Khalistan is proposed to be a democracy. If you feel there are enough reliable reference which are dealing or challenging if implementing democracy will be difficult, then its not a problem to put those lines in some appropriate section on the Khalistan article. However, I feel the lead should have the claim of the proponents of Khalistan. If they are proposing it to be democratic, so be it. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

They are less authoritative than academics. That is what reliability is about. Sure, white supremacists are "notable" voices with regard white supremacy, but we let qualified experts do the analysis and provide the authoritative narratives. Wikipedia is not designed to project what activists claim they are up to, but rather to provide the descriptions that trustworthy authorities say is really going on. "Mr. G" could be lying on his website to garner sympathy; a politician might spin things a certain way to advance special interests or please lobbyists; rather than draw the conclusion ourselves we rely on qualified individuals (in this case academics) to be the primary sources of the article. If reliable sources contend that it is theocratic, while less reliable sources that are closer to the fringe under discussion allege it is going to be democratic, the reliable sources win in our narrative. This is basic WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources:

• Articles should not be based primarily on such sources
• An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention
• "Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

We don't know the level of acceptance for the "democratic" idea, but considering that academic assessments of the situation generally don't give it much weight (except when describing the debate among Sikhs overseas as in the home.comcast.net article), it is irresponsible to place it in the lead or another prominent position. Even if these guys truly envision a democratic Khalistan, we have little reason to believe that supporters as a whole see democracy, not theocracy, as the future. You are drawing up material from these extremist proponents in direct violation of our guidelines. The last thing we are supposed to do is allow these groups to own the Wikipedia narrative. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 07:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with 67.194.202.113 here, especially on the point of synthesis. You cannot call it a theocratic-democratic state (that very term is synthesis) by providing a reference to each and then linking them together. Given your opposition to cherry-picking, I'm surprised that you're doing it here. I would recommend not placing "democratic" in the lead. It will need to be discussed later on in the article, especially noting that the description doesn't have wide acceptance among academics, and is only supported by less reliable sources. --vi5in^[talk] 20:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, May I request you to not to quickly jump to conclusions without first appropriately refuting my explanation or understanding the history of ongoing discussion? Did you read my reply to 67.194.202.113 explaining why my addition of a specific reference is not cherry-picking?. You had earlier shown similar eagerness to pick sides against me without proper investment in the issue at hand. Did you note that I've already mentioned [3] that the terms (with "_" in middle) "theocratic-democratic" can be separated? Nevetheless, I do not agree with putting "or" in the middle because it would be incorrect to say "or" if the proponents of Khalistan are not saying it. Please read these comment here to understand why the proponents of Khalistan (namely Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh) are duly notable for their claims of implementing whatever they claim. No I strongly disagree that the claims of proposing democracy by the proponents of the Khalistan should be removed from the lead and discussed later. I think it the other way around. The lead should have the claim of the proponents and if there are sufficient notable scholarly articles discussing why they feel Khalistan will be theocratic, they can be mentioned later in the article. One again - the proposal of so called Khalistan is by the proponents Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh, the claim of what they want to implemented is by the proponents, we are discussing a proposed item here - so the proponents are as notable as the topic of the article itself (ie. Khalistan). The lead shoud have the claim of the proponents, later sections can have discussion what certain scholars have said about the implementation of policies. Not just that, feel free to include any other problem that the scholars believe the proposed "Khalistan" may have, however, make sure they are added as "statements of opinion" not "statements of facts" --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear 67.194.202.113, I feel you are trying the wrong key. For a proposed Khalistan, the proponents are more notable in the lead on what they are proposing. Its not Mr. Kapur who is proposing Khalistan. If Khalistan was, lets say, a cosmic phenomenon (over which neither Mr. Kapur nor Mr. X,Y,Z had any direct control) and Mr. Kapur held a degree in astronomy, he certainly is more reliable than anybody with no such degree. However, Khalistan is a political issue and the proponants are more NOTABLE; if anything like so called Khalistan (which they propose) comes into being, they have direct control of implementing what they propose - (the right key is notability). And no, the statements of the proponents are not fringe theories. Feel free to add a section to the article where different views of scholars can be discussed about the viability of anything in the proposed Khalistan - be it democracy, water supply, or a healthy economy. But once again, when we discuss a proposed idea (like that of Khalistan), the proponents claim or proposal makes the lead not the scholars predictions. The criticism of the idea of Khalistan can follow in the article; it can also include if somebody feels so and so called person (Mr. G like you said) is lying. Noting the statements of 2 of the leading activists of Khalistan not a violation of any wikipedia policy --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not jumping to any conclusions. Also, please don't misleadingly link and say that I have shown "similar eagerness" to "pick sides". From what I recall, I brought up a number of sources only to have you pedantically discredit them with some long-winded argument based on tangential technicalities. Which is why I've removed myself from editing that article. I'm glad to see that you agree to have them separated. But what you say later makes no sense. It seems very odd that you would pick the term that has no scholarly backing versus a term that does. You seem to claim that on the basis that the proponents know what they are talking about, but really, it only makes it more suspect since they obviously have an agenda, and therefore by definition, are biased. It makes more sense to use scholarly and unbiased references, and in this case a majority point to the term "theocratic", rather than "democratic". It's funny how you bring up "statements of opinion" and "statements of fact" and twist them to suit your needs. In the other case, the BBC (a very well known source) was apparently producing a "statement of opinion". I fail to see how your proponents of Khalistan could be producing "statements of fact". In fact, what they speak of is more opinionated than anything else. Claiming that the article is about a proposed state and then saying that therefore the proponents are more reliable is specious logic at best. I guess then, articles on Unicorns and Ponies should use six to seven-year old girls as references since they obviously believe in unicorns and love ponies and are "closer" to the subject than scholars. "Democratic" need not be mentioned in the first sentence, but perhaps could still exist in the lead with the disclaimer that the proponents of Khalistan describe it to be "democratic". --vi5in^[talk] 00:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, No I have not misleadingly linked, I still feel you are quick to jump to conclusions without reading. That aside, you are failing to understand the discussion once again. I say so because even after the stating "proposed" many times in my talk above, you are still talking something that reflects you have either not read or not understood what is being discussed. To clarify it further for you to clear your confusion about duality in use of "statement of fact" and "statement of opinion" argument let me stress on words - Khalistan is a proposal not a fact , hence it is natural that people are who are proposing and working for this proposal are more notable. Your bringing my stand of BBC on other article does not make any sense. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) No, I'm sorry to say, that's patently ridiculous. In that case six to seven-year old girls would be more qualified to talk about Unicorns, wouldn't you think? Academics are more reliable than proponents. I'll take this up to WP:RS, when I have some time. --vi5in^[talk] 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, please tone down the language and try to understand that certain individuals are NOTABLE on certain issues. Khalistan is not proposed by academicians, but by the proponents Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh and they are certainly NOTABLE. You are also trying the wrong key here, the right being "notability". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 16:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't used any sort of language that needs to be toned down. There's nothing hard here to understand. Academics are more reliable than proponents. I thought that would be very evident from my analogy. Once again, WP:RS when I have some time. --vi5in^[talk] 17:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added in a refernce from the eminent Indian Historian Dr Gopal Singh. So let's not argue anymore. Matter is settled.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Your source not only did not say "democracy" or "democratic," but even if it did it would not wipe out or overrule the multitude of sources that say "theocratic." My arguments on why your attempt to elevate the non-mainstream views in the article against policy are futile remain to be refuted, but your abusive editing, laden with original research, undue weight, and unreliable sources, continues. Don't pretend you have settled anything. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I really hate saying this, but if you do not understand what a Constituent Assembly is, then you should stop editing. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Dead link, very broad statement, cutting.

" This culminated in the bombing of [[Air India Flight 182 in which 329 people were killed."

• Khalistan Alive In Sikh-Canadian Hearts and Minds,The Globe and Mail, Mississauga, Ontario, Mar. 17, 2005, By ROBERT MATAS

I am very very dubious of this statement. It needs sourcing, and more than sikhtimes. Link dead.- sinneed (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Remember wp:BLP applies to STATEMENTs not ARTICLES.

Any statement about a Living Person must meet the requirements in wp:BLP, whether the article as a whole is about the individual or about anything else. For example, an article about dogfood might claim that an individual endorsed the dogfood. BLP would apply. I have cut an entire section that did not meet wp:BLP, as it accused various persons of acting as lobbyists for the cause of Khalistan. One is free to speak for something, or for people involved in something, without being a "lobbyist" for that cause.- sinneed (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut to talk for possible inclusion.

"The Khalistan movement is now widely seen as a smaller scale separatist movement by some Sikh youth in Canada, the US and the UK. "

That is not what the source says, at all. If this rests on the body, it should not be tagged to that source.

- sinneed (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

NA and UK... I changed to "internationally"

NA and UK *ARE* international from India. Thus, no, not misleading, as it is supported by the source. Please explain any objection. Thanks.- sinneed (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if the main quantum of support for the movement arises from NA and UK then it would probably be misleading to an uninformed reader to change it to 'international' as the idea would be that the support is worldwide from every corner say even in africa or mainland europe. Hence I would request you to reconsider your stand. LegalEagle (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! The citation there lists only the UK, so we could just cut it to what the source says, but that seems very misleading.

One would expect mostly Canada, UK, and somewhat less from US and Europe as these are where most Sikhs settled after the 1984-1992(ish) meltdown in Punjab - but sourcing is a problem. I see US, UK, Canada, EU in various sources as having substantial Sikh populations.

The last US State Department document from 1997 and said "extremists gather funds from overseas Sikh communities." I'll past that source, line, and quote here for consideration.

According to a 1997 United States Department of State, "Sikh militant cells are active internationally and extremists gather funds from overseas Sikh communities."

In fact, I like that wording, and will make the change from:

"Khalistan had support from some of the Sikh community in North America and the UK"

to

"Khalistan had support among overseas Sikh communities, including the UK."

and add the State source.

I very much appreciate your thoughts, and look forward to more. If I have time I will hunt down a source for specific nations and/or the EU...I have seen them.

I also have read a book source that stated that most of the Sikh Khalistani organizations had contact addresses in the UK, EU, and US... but finding it might be a problem.

- sinneed (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerate view, quoting US SD docu would greatly add clarity to the article. LegalEagle (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)