Jump to content

Talk:Khalistan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 34: Line 34:


[http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1]
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1]

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


==bad sources==
==bad sources==

Revision as of 07:19, 16 January 2008

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.

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.

Reply:

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.

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.

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?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

SEMI-PROTECT

I want that the admins semi-protect this page... Because there are too many pov edits by ips like 90.192.59.135. Please do as soon as possible. Sunnybondsinghjalwehra (talk) 16:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]