Talk:Jaswant Singh Khalra

Untitled

I have concern of controversial nature of this article, and that it so far has only had one contributor. I have put general stub and category, as well as this warning to get people to come here and contribute so to get balanced view of this article. I am not saying that what is written is at all incorrect but that it needs many authors to gain respect. Please do not remove these templates until others have contributed. Cheers Lethaniol 15:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(1) What specifically makes this article controversial? (2) Is it standard Wikipedia protocol to tag an article as unbalanced if it has only one author? If not, why is this article being singled out?

I am surprised that on the one hand you do not dispute the correctness of this article, and on the other hand you call it unbalanced. Please explain how this article is lacking balance or remove this stain from the Wikipedia entry. Thank you. Gulguley 16 January 2007

It is not a stain, and does not prejudice the article in any way. It notifies people that this article requires some cleanup as it may not conform to one of the key pillars of Wikipedia, a neutral point of view. Personally, I believe the article also requires some balancing - this all needs to be cited to ensure it is verifiable. This article tells only one side of the story and is uncited. Personally, I would consider an article with only one author to be slightly dubious - its nigh on impossible to maintain both sides of the argument with only one contributor. Note that Lethaniol tagged this at the end of October last year, not recently. RHB 00:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

(1) "Unbalanced" has a negative connotation whichever way you slice it. I(2) For quality improvement, it already has the wikify tag. Adding the balance tag is not necessary for that purpose. (3) Again I question why other single-author articles are not automatically tagged as unbalanced.

I encourage you and Lethaniol to point out in which way the article is unbalanced, and help improve it. Anyways, instead of arguing here, I will add more references/citations to remove your doubt and will welcome help in cleaning up the write-up. Pls take a look in a couple hours. BTW I am not the original author of the bio. Picture added. Gulguley (<:-}= 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Gulguley

Dear Gulguley,

You have questioned my actions in putting an unbalanced tag on this article - even though myself and RHB have given some of our reasons above. Please remember we are both experienced Wikipedia editors and are pretty familiar with how it works and how its policies/guidelines relate to articles.

I freely admit that I have next no knowledge of Indian culture/history and no knowledge of this person and their history. Therefore I am not qualified to add any information to this article, only to make sure it meets the standards required of Wikipedia.

Your main concern with my actions was that I added an unbalanced tag to this article. This tag is not used to say that the article is incorrect or unbalanced only that it MIGHT be. It is used in to gain attention of other editors to the article so that they can check if it is unbalanced, correct it if needed and then remove the tag. Likewise I added the Indian bio stub so that people interested in Indian biographies would come and help develop the article.

In terms of what specifically caused me to add the unbalanced tag I will use the first few lines as an example:

Sardar Jaswant Singh Khalra (1952-1995) is a martyr who fought for gaining justice for thousands of innocent Sikhs who were murdered by police in Punjab, India.

For starters these statements/facts are not sourced (please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:CITE for why and how we cite facts - all facts should be cited) - in particular if you say that people were murdered - this is highly controversial and needs to be backed up by firm sources. If it has not been proven that the people were murdered, then to be balanced (and follow WP:NPOV) it should say that this is an opinion/belief/theory - and back up with evidence in the form of references or link to an article that discusses the murdering.

Furthermore this is an encylopedia and should steer clear of subjective language. For example martyr is a highly subjective term - one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. To pick an extreme example - though Saddam Hussein may be considered a martyr to millions of people it is unlikely to be appropriate to describe him as such as if it were fact. Therefore it is often better to say that he is a martyr to these people (plus reference). P.S. In no way am I comparing with Saddam with this man except that they are both considered martyrs.

This is why I put the unbalanced tag on - not because the information is incorrect - I have no idea if it is or not - but that it looks like that it might be stating opinion as fact, and these facts are not referenced. What needs to happen is other editors need to help out - separate any opinion from fact - reference all information - and then remove the unbalanced tag. Until then it is highly appropriate that the unbalanced tag stays.

I hope that this all makes sense, and you can see my reasons come from wanting a top notch encyclopaedia, not from any bias of mine. I wish you well on your time in Wikipedia - and please feel free to contact me if there is anything I can help you with. Cheers Lethaniol 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

To: Lethaniol

I have been waiting since the time you tagged this article as unbalanced for some other editor to come and add more information. Even though I had the information myself, I wanted someone else to note the article here in wikipedia and add information so that the condition to remove the "unbalanced tag" is satisfied. I think the condition has been satisfied now as some other author has come and added the information. Therefore, my request to you is to remove the unbalanced tag. Moreover, I think it is not justified to add such tags without complete knowledge of the history, facts and other information related to the subject matter. I might have not written a quality wikipage, but it certainly does not deserve such tagging. Please don't mind my words and ping me if you have further information. There can be no 2 views on oppression, the oppressor will always give a point of view which suits his/her selfish motives. If you read all the external links which have been added to this article till now, you will come to know that it has already been accepted that Jaswant Singh Khalra was kidnapped and murdered by the Police. It has also been proved that during the 1980s the were uncountable human rights violations committed against the Sikhs in India by the Government. Thousands and thousands of young men and even their parents were shot dead and their bodies were never even returned to their kins, in most of the cases police even did not tell whether a person was dead or alive. This is a long list of atrocities and I do not want to make the reply lengthy. In fact, what can be a second view on the killings of Jews by Hitler's Regime in the Nazi Germany? If Hitler's Regime is still in power, will you go and ask them of their views on why they killed the Jews? I see no justification in that. Moreover, I am shocked by the example that you are giving of Saddam Hussein in relation to Jaswant Singh Khalra. I respect your right to express your views my friend, but please read on the issue and history, I do not agree that if I do not understand an issue it gives me the right to tag it as unbalanced.

--A. S. Aulakh 21:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Length of Quotation

HI there,

The quote that has been added is way to long - please read up at Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources - needs to be deleted or significantly shortened. User:Lethaniol

Rep: Allright, I will work on summarizing the speech part. --A. S. Aulakh 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I do not want to push the unbalanced issue - even though IMHO the article still - so I have asked for some outside input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism and Wikipedia:WikiProject India. As long some of those editors come along I will not get any more involved in this article except to defend my actions if asked.

Rep: Thanks for asking the editors on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikhism to come along and edit this article. I appreciate your initiative. Infact, I myself should have done that earlier. Anyway, its a good idea to ask them to come to this page and help in making it better. I believe every better thing can be turned into best --A. S. Aulakh 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And by the way - if you look at what I said - I in no way compared Saddam Hussein with Jaswant Singh Khalra except to say that they might both be considered matyrs. Please read up at WP:AGF amd WP:CIVIL. Thanks User:Lethaniol

Rep: Yup, I read your PS part of that comment. Even then I was kind of shocked, because thinking of an example - Saddam flashed in your mind which I think is not a good example. Anyway, I don't want to point fingers at you, just want to say there is no relation (near, far what-so-ever) in putting Saddam and Jaswant Singh Khalra in the same category. Cheers!! --A. S. Aulakh 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also please note that even the most admired people in history have crtitism presented in their articles for example: Mahatma_Gandhi and Mother_Teresa. Thanks User:Lethaniol

Rep: Please read "Gandhi Behind the Mask of Divinity - by G.B. Singh" The author G. B. Singh is from the US army and this work from him is his 20 years of research on Mahatma Gandhi. In fact, Mahatma Gandhi has been over glorified by the Indian Congress party gaining votes from general public and more than 50 years from his death, the party is still cashing on the "over glorified" image that they have created over time. You will be surprised and shocked to know that the history and facts have been distorted in many cases by the people in power to suit their own selfish motives. In fact, the "Non-violent" protests that Mahatma Gandhi did against the East India Company seem to have been borrowed from the Sikhs, to confirm this please read the Sikh history and the way the Sikhs gurus (for example Martyrdom of Guru Arjan, Unique Sacrifice of Guru Teg Bahadar) protested against the opression and the curtailing of freedom by the muslim Mughal rulers in India . Regards --A. S. Aulakh 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is unbalanced to the point of absurdity. Who says the Sikhs were innocent? Who says their arrests were illegal? Who says they were "tortured and murdered" rather than, for instance, that they died during interrogation or that they were questioned and rightfully executed? Who says Khalra set "an excellent example" and is "a true martyr" and "truly exemplified" Sikh teachings? And all of these examples are just from the first paragraph, and there are no inline citations to back any of them up. The tag is more than justified. Kafziel ^Talk 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Kafziel, the issue of innocence of people disappeared by police, and the illegal nature of their arrests, detentions and outright abductions is very well documented; all you need to do is read up on the linked references. Based of a COMPREHENSION of the subject matter, you should edit the entry to improve its quality. Until then, please spare your rhetoric. The fact that this entry is being subjected to demands for "balance" by people with ZERO familiarity with the subject matter, is unfortunate, for these people are supposed to be responsible wikipedia editors. We have Lethaniol already on record admitting he has no familiarity with the subject of this entry, and there is no indication that you know anything about it, either. So, people not familiar with the subject should lay off, please. Gulguley (<:-}= 16:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rep: Dear Kafziel, I am shocked by this comment of yours.

What do you mean by saying "Who says the Sikhs were innocent"? I will in return ask you that "Who is saying that each and every Sikh is/was/will be innocent?". This issue is about human rights. In the United States people talk even about the human rights of the criminals who have commited heinous crimes even against children and then you talk against the human rights of even the innocent? First of all please note that there is huge difference between how the police operates in India and in United States. The police in United States is very courteous and honors the human rights of people (even criminals). If you tell this fact to an Indian he/she will be in a shock. Police in India can slap a person in the public without reason and nobody will even question them. They can pick anybody without a warrant and nobody will question them. Here and there some justice gets delivered and it seems like justice is there but all that is for the powerful and rich, the middle class in India does not even want to go to the courts for justice as it is expensive and time consuming and there is very less probability of getting justice.

You said in your above comment, "Who says they were "tortured and murdered" rather than, for instance, that they died during interrogation or that they were questioned and rightfully executed?". This comment of yours is telling me about your knowledge of this issue. Read the reports by www.ensaaf.org and Amnesty International. And by the way, what do you call "rigtful execution"? Young boys were picked up from streets and home by the police and then they were never even seen again. The police neither gave the family the right to see, talk or know about their kids. They did not even return the dead bodies. They were shooting them point blank and then burning them by declaring the bodies "unclaimed". You call this "rightfull execution"? What makes you think that? Please elaborate the comment that you have made here. Do you live in United States? If yes, then which law of United States makes you think that death in interrogation is OK? Which law of US tells you that you can pick kids (age 15 - 18) without their parents even knowing and then kill them and burn them? Which law of US tells you that its OK to kill even the parents of the person in custody? I am shocked that a person living in a great country like United States can make the comments that you have made. United States has set an excellent example in the world how a democracy works and I think India should learn from it.

If you need information related to this issue, watch the videos of a report on this topic in English: -

Khalra finds 2000 illegal Cremations

The Adbuction of JS Khalra

No Justice For Khalra

Kulwinder Singh Kidnapped by Police=

Bribe to Drop Police Case=

Man Brought to Post Mortem While Alive...=

5 Minute Post Mortems...=

"No Reason for Death"=

Gursharan Singhs Son Butchered

Read the news:- The Tribune, Chandigarh, India - Punjab

Read the report by Amnesty International: - India: A Mockery of Justice: The case concerning the "disappearance" of human rights defender Jaswant Singh Khalra severely undermined - Amnesty International

Read and Watch Jaswant Singh Khalra's last international speech:- Ensaaf | Khalra's Last International Speech Highlights Mass Crimes of KPS Gill

I think the truth will be clear to an avid researcher by reading the reports and watching the documentary, unless one chooses to keep the mind prejudiced.

Cheers! --A. S. Aulakh 19:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently I was not as clear as I should have been. I do not mean "who says" as in, "Says who". I mean "who says" as in, "what is your source for that statement?" Obviously whoever did the arresting and the killing felt it was justified, so there are two sides to the story. If a statement shows bias, which the statements I listed do, then you need to show where your information is coming from in the proper format. Did a reliable source (not Amnesty International) say the victims were innocent, and that their detention was illegal? You need to specifically show which one. You also need to allow for the other point of view to have its say, whether you agree with it or not. Even with citations, opinions should never be stated as facts.

This has nothing to do with where I live; we are all here on Wikipedia, and those are the only rules that matter in this case. Kafziel ^Talk 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, now we have Amnesty International being labeled an unreliable source. What is more reliable? Why not use AI reference materials until something better comes along? And until you can bring such more reliable references, why don't you let the entry mature instead of obstructing its evolution? (dismissing AI and other references is NOT a contribution to the evolution) Gulguley (<:-}= 16:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose citing Amnesty International would be an improvement over citing nothing whatsoever. But they are certainly not an unbiased, universally accepted source. Their business depends on finding rights violations; if they didn't either find them or concoct them, they'd be out of a job.

I'm not sure what you mean about my obstructing the evolution of the article. I've never edited the article in the least; I'm here in response to a request for comment. Keeping that maintenance tag at the top of the page does not prevent improvements from being made. But Wikipedia policy requires any controversial comments to be sourced or removed. There is no option for letting the entry "mature" for a while. Kafziel ^Talk 16:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rep: I see! So now I have requested a few others to visit this page when they have time and help out in improving the content. I look forward to improvement in the future. Cheers!! -- A. S. Aulakh^Talk 02:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am working on a complete rewrite of the article User:Kafziel/sandbox|here. It has the formatting and tone expected of a Wikipedia article, and I have used inline citations for most of the sources.

I think my rewrite still maintains a somewhat biased account of Singh Khalra, but the weight of evidence seems to lie with him; it is not necessary to be completely neutral if one side is overwhelmingly supported. Police officers have been convicted of his murder; the details may not be known, but it is more than just a theory.

In any event, a person's biography is not the place for edit wars over content. The place to discuss the methods of the police in the 1980s is at the appropriate article about the Khalistan uprising and its aftermath. Biographies should contain facts, never opinions.

I encourage everyone to take a look at the new version on my page and post comments on the talk page there. Kafziel ^Talk 20:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Kafziel, I am on the run presently and just went through quickly on your rewrite of the article. First of all I appreciate your efforts and time on this article. I was very busy to read in detail on rewrite but I quickly noticed a couple of things:-

1. His name is Jaswant Singh Khalra and not Singh Khalra as you said in your comment. Jaswant is the first name, Singh is middle and Khalra is the last name.
2. I note that you are saying that it has not been proved that Jaswant Singh Khalra was murdered. This is not true. His murder by the police has been proved and Jaspal Singh and Amarjit Singh were found guilty for murder and destroying of evidence while SHO Satnam Singh, SHO Surinderpal Singh, SHO Jasbir Singh and Head Constable Prithipal Singh were found guilty of kidnapping with an intent to murder and hatching a conspiracy. All these people are from the police. The main accused under whose orders this has been done is still free (KPS Gill, the reason is big support from government that he is getting. The government is supporting him and saving from conviction because it was the government who ordered the killings.

I will come back on this issue and read your rewrite in detail. Once again, thanks for the time that you are investing on this article. A. S. Aulakh^Talk 22:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If I got his name wrong anywhere, feel free to correct it. As for point 2, I'm not sure which version of the rewrite you saw, but it has included mention of the convictions and the evidence presented pretty much from the beginning. In fact, the current version of the actual article makes no mention at all of the convictions; I had to find that out for myself.

Regarding KPS Gill, we certainly can't say things like "The government is supporting him and saving from conviction because it was the government who ordered the killings." That's speculation, no matter who says it. All we can say is that he has not been charged yet, which the article does state. We can't comment on the fairness of that or the reasons behind it. Remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Thanks for your input. I hope to hear more. Kafziel ^Talk 22:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite completed

I have replaced the article with the rewritten version from my sandbox. I also removed the maintenance tags; it is now reasonably well-referenced and unbiased, and certainly wikified. The new text replaces some excerpts from the speech—only those that directly pertain to to his goals, and give a first-person overview of his situation.

I hope Sikh editors can appreciate that the article reads more smoothly and with less bias while preserving the essence of his message and his fate. I hope non-Sikh editors can appreciate the fact that I'm not Sikh either (and I hadn't the faintest idea who this guy was until I did the research for this rewrite) so I'm not biased toward the subject. The new version uses the proper inline citation format and I hope other editors will continue to use that when adding content in the future to avoid any more edit warring or intervention by third parties such as myself.

I'm going to leave this page on my watchlist for a few more days to make sure there are no further issues. Thanks to everyone for their input. Kafziel ^Talk 02:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO you have done a great job Kafziel. Neutral point of view, wikified, inline citations and even links from other articles - a great start for a new article - if only they all started as such. I am sure there is more relevant information that needs to be expanded upon - but as long as people follow the tone of your work there should be no problem - especially if they make sure all the statements are fact are referenced and that it is neutrally written. Cheers Lethaniol 08:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos! I agree, this is great work Kafziel!. Thanks for the efforts and time you spent on this article. A. S. Aulakh^Talk 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you like the rewrite Aulakh, and I would like to point out this is precisely how Wikipedia works. Some people write up a new article, it is identified by other users that it needs work and various tags may be added, then users who have the time/knowledge/experience come along and help update/revise/rewrite it. This process is always ongoing - and therefore the article will evolve though time. Normally the more editors involved the better the article gets. So have faith in the system Aulakh and you will do well in Wikipedia, because at the end of the day we are all striving for the same goal - a fantastic encyclopaedia free for the whole world to use. Cheers Lethaniol 14:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Babbar Khalsa

I've removed the following unsourced addition from the article:

He has been accused by some people of having been an overground worker of extremist organisations, Babbar Khalsa and Bhindranwala Tigers Force of Khalistan (BTFK).

I tried hard, but I can't find a single reliable source putting this claim forward. The only thing I could come up with was a comment on a Yahoo! message board. That's all. If there are valid sources for this, please present them. Kafziel ^Talk 21:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

PoV

Clearly, there are those who see this individual as a crusader against abuse, and those who disagree. Please do not wp:edit war. Please discuss the dispute here, and if needed pursue wp:conflict resolution. Please do not kill one another's sources...

• If a link is dead, please use the {{dead link}} tag on it.
• If a source is a bad source, please either tag it {{dubious}} and/or {{CN}}.
• If a source added clearly fails wp:RS but is an adequate wp:EL, please consider placing it in the wp:EL sections, rather than discarding it.
• If it simply must go, please bring it here to the talk page and explain. This is so much kinder than just destroying.
• Please use informative wp:edit summaries

- sinneed (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Still Disputed?

From what I gather from the above conversations, the neutrality of this entry is no longer disputed. What needs to be done to have the neutrality dispute flag removed from the page? Is there a technicality here that is preventing it from being removed, or are there still questions about the neutrality that need to be addressed?

I just updated the citations on the page and cleaned it up a bit (particularly the last section, which was redundant and didn't make much sense) and would like to improve the neutrality of the page as well. Thanks! --Seattlegirl27 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jaswant Singh Khalra. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017113415/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200071998?open&of=ENG-IND to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA200071998?open&of=ENG-IND

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

25000 deaths

Hi User:Harmanprtjhj you have reverted my edit without stating any reason or source. I had removed this following WP:V policy, you are welcome to re-add the content with a reliable source that supports the said claims, but do not simply ad back such controversial claims that are not backed up by any reliable source. see WP:RS. Please follow WP:BURDEN that states "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". now please self revert and remove the siad claim until you find a reliable source for this. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

In your world Taylor & Francis[1] are not WP:RS however in actual world they are very reliable source. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Harmanprtjhj You have already been warned about WP:NPA kindly do not use condescending language such as the one you used above. This comment was written when you had reverted without adding a source. You had added the source later on here--DBigXrayᗙ 21:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

You made your message at 21:26 and you had at least 15 minutes to update your note here yet you didn't until I called on. Were you waiting for others to revert me without reading or later justify your edit by citing that I didnt joined this unnecessary discussion? You better know not to remove long term information when you can easily find sources. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

see WP:AGF. Please read WP:BURDEN and familiarize yourself with WP:V controversial information that are not adequately sourced can be removed immediately. --DBigXrayᗙ 07:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)