Talk:Shabeg Singh/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Copyvio

I have removed the bulk of the articel as a straight copyvio, as mentioned above. Rich Farmbrough 12:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

VfD

On April 9, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabeg Singh. The result was keep. —Xezbeth 13:26, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

The biography exceeds its justification. More a one-sided personal glorification. He was a court martialled officer for wrong-doings, that may be questionable, but a person of the rank of Maj Gen supporting terrorists against own country , is not justified. This page doesnot yield an un-biased picture of the circumstances. should be removed or heavily edited, seems to be a copy paste from a fundamantilists book Markgreat (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)mrkMarkgreat (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit glorifying but that's the only point you seem to have gotten partially correct. Jarnail Singh was not a terrorist but a revolutionary that can be compared to the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. You also don't seem to know the definition of the word “fundamentalist". In case you didn't know, it's someone who sticks to their beliefs, their “fundamentals" and it is not synonymous with “terrorist". Please “markgreat", for the good of us all, separate your ignorance from the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.104.187 (talk) 07:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite?

Stumbled across this article, and IMO it needs wikifying and perhaps a rewrite; the tone strikes me as a bit too reverential, much like the bio listed under external links. Since I don't know a thing about the subject, however, the best I can do is heap the responsibility upon someone who does. --Impaciente 03:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Did some wikifying, but left the core of the article basically untouched because I too know basically nothing about the subject. Still needs more wikifying in the later sections and a lot of work by someone knowledgable --Bradkittenbrink 04:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I also added an npov tag since the whole text appears to be essentially a paste of that propaganda piece of a biography in the external links section --Bradkittenbrink 04:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I am going to commence a study of Sikh History and am in the process of compiling a resource library. Will then try to edit the some of these pages with proper references. Being a Sikh myself, I can understand why the author would adopt a reverential tone. It was a terrible time for all of us in India and the community, in many ways, is still trying to recover from it. However, that's still no excuse for articles of this type. Although I find Wikipedia to be the one of the best thing on the internet, it surely cannot survive without neutrality and objectivity on the part of the contributors.Indertiwana (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

SikhiWiki

There is an extensive article on Shabeg Singh in SikhiWiki (which is largely a Wikipedia clone with the articles on Sikhs rewritten so that they appear to be heroes) here. There is no question that this is not in general a reliable source, but there are some interesting biographical details that are probably correct. Anyone any objections to me using them? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Go for it tell the truth no objections I knew this man on a personal level most of the sikhi wiki article is correct--Raidcmdr (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I recommend that huge portion of this article, specially the third paragragph onwards has so many unsupported assertions. These must be either removed or refrenced. I also strongly object using the SikhWiki. If there is some credible source please use it. 203.200.225.151 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Himanshu

I don't understand why sikhi wiki is considered an unreliable source. Just because many of those men and women were truly great, it doesn't make the source unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.104.187 (talk) 07:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Their greatness has absolutely nothing to do with the tone of the article. You're being willfully ignorant. Happy Family Planning (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Page is completely biased

The article seems to be completely biased and does not have required citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahamrinal08 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)