User talk:Sukh

---

Hi! I saw your message and replied.
--Cam 00:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sant Bhindranwale

What do u despite so totally?

Are you a Sikh or Hindu judging by your intervation in several sikh related pages I see your very pro-Indian in bias.

I am - broadly speaking - a Sikh, although that is irrelevant apart from the fact that it gives me more interest in such related pages. Khalistan is a very tricky issue and different sides have their own opinions as to what exactly happened. You indeed show your own bias in the article. Take for example this:

Attacks by Sikh militants have dropped markedly since 1992

Attacks by militants and Indian forces have dropped markedly since 1992

Why would you remove the fact that they're Sikh militants? You might not agree that they could be Sikhs (then again, you might) but to most people they are considered Sikh militants.

Why did you remove this line?

Total civilian deaths in Punjab have declined by more than 95 per cent since 1991.

You need to present your views in a much more NPOV way. And, you can't remove the disputed sign because the neutrality of the page is STILL disputed. The Khalistan page has been looked at a lot recently and it's a tricky issue. Coming in and making lots of changes will be heavily scrutinised.

In regards to the Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale article. I never reverted any of your edits simply reinstated the disputed sign. However, some people may disagree with certain things you have written. For example:

The word "guru" is offensive to Sikhs when used by people to claim they are if they follow Sikhism. As Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji (Sikh Holy Book) is the last and eternel guru of Sikhism.

You say it's offensive to Sikhs. Well evidently that's not true. You could say it's offensive to most Sikhs or it's offensive to Orthodox Sikhs and still get your point across.

I'm not trying to stifle you. Any edits you make are acceptable as long as they are presented with a neutral point of view and backed up with references (essential in such controversial articles).

Sukh 13:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok in regards to Sant Bhindranwale page I dont mind it being in dispute.

But for Khalistan page I have tried to added some relevant human rights abuses information, which is critical to the struggle for Khalistan. Vivin has stated his pro-Indian govt bias in the page I was only giving the Sikh side of the story. Human rights abuses have played a massive part in Khalistan and Sikh politics. So If you dont mind I would like to include it the page so that people are aware of violence from both sides.

Regards,

Thetruth

As long as you phrase your edits correctly that should be alright. But try and balance both sides of the story. Saying things like "Some Sikhs believe that..." instead of "Sikhs believe..." and BACKING UP your claims with references to 3rd parties: books, web pages, newspapers etcetera. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ this brings up your name and the time/date you made the comment.

Also, don't remove the disputed notice. If you think it is neutral please discuss on the talk page and if there is a consensus the notice can be removed. Sukh 15:36, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Khalistani being voted for deletion

Thetruth has been going around making a number of POV changes. He has also created the Khalistani article. I feel that since it's a hypothetical term, and not even one in common use, there is no need for this article. There even isn't enough information on the subject. Could you please add your vote to the talk page? --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്)

Well it's not a hypothetical term but it's fairly self-explanatory. I recommend either a re-direct to Khalistan or the addition to Wiktionary. The vfd page doesn't appear to have been set up and it also needs to be listed at the appropriate date on Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion.

I agree that the truth's edits are getting out of hand. I have been away for the weekend, but I'm going to be reading through the Khalistan page over the coming days and merging edits from the truth's version which I can verify. If he is not happy with that, we can consider locking it - and other controversial pages he is editing. Either that or we can approach an OP to ban him - but maybe it's too early for something quite that drastic yet.

Sukh 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I think I will set up a redirect to Khalistan. That way we can bypass the whole vfd thing. His edits really are getting out of hand, but yes, I agree that it may be too early to do anything. We'll see how it goes from now on. --Vivin Paliath (വിവിന് പാലിയത്) 17:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)