Jump to content

Talk:Punjabi Suba movement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

add quote

[edit]

The true test of democracy, in the opinion of the Shiromani Akali Dal, is that the minorities should feel that they are really free and equal partners in the destiny of their country…to bring home a sense of freedom to the Sikhs, it is vital that there should be a Punjabi speaking language and culture. This will not only be in fulfillment of the pre-partition Congress program and pledges, but also in entire conformity with the universally recognized principles governing formation of provinces…The Shiromani Akali Dal has reason to believe that a Punjabi-speaking province may give the Sikhs the needful security. It believes in a Punjabi speaking province as a autonomous unit of India.”

The Akali Dal sought to create a Punjabi suba, a Punjabi-speaking state. This case was presented to the Sates Reorganization Commission established in 1953. The Akali Dal’s manifesto declared:

Deol, Harnik, Religion and Nationalism in India: The Case of the Punjab, London: Routledge, 2000, p. 93 --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

[edit]

@Aswin8: I'm not sure if I understand these cleanup tags here. Does this article have some bias that needs to be corrected? Jarble (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarble: Alright, I guess I was a bit too harsh on placing such tags at that time, I've removed some of the "not-so-necessary" tags. Oh and by the way, I'm not very experienced using these tags and all and wanted to give them a go, that's why. Thanks for your suggestion!

Unexplained removal

[edit]

Gopalchan45678 Please explain the reason for your removal. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The comments add a biased anti-Sikh narrative and remove neutrality of the article. The sourced material is not sufficient to support your opinion. Gopalchan45678 (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gopalchan45678 With all due respect, that's a nonsensical argument, you cannot remove content based on your own personal opinions. Read WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:BALANCED, you are in violation of both. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote your religion, it is a tertiary source that summarizes relevant reliable secondary sources, reliable sources are not discerned by whether you feel they are pro or anti your religion, but on the basis of the author's educational experience and the rigorousness of the text's peer review. May I remind you that Princeton University is one of the apex educational institutions in the world, and Wikipedia considers it to be one the most reliable sources possible. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what part of WP:NPOV I violated or how I engaged in WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH as you seem to be implying? I merely summarized the work of a scholar Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per this [1] RSN archive, Public universities often have greater degrees of academic freedom, while religious institutions are required to follow their ideology more closely. SGPC is a religious institution, with a long history of embellishing their history, as per this book [2]. Their claims should not be in the infobox. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to interfere in the argument here but Gurdarshan Dhillon is a scholar and chairman of Department of Evening studies at Punjab University, Chandigarh. Controversial author Pashaura Singh’s book Sikhism and History doesn’t mention any embellishments of history by SGPC. Gurdarshan Dillon’s own academic credentials speak of itself regardless of who published the book. 2600:1016:B029:82EC:5DF5:349A:337C:77A1 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged Gurdarshan's credentials, however, my point of contention is the placement of these claims in the infobox, I would be okay if it was placed in the body with attribution. I'm also weary of two things: your continued block evasion as well your uncalled for remarks on Pashaura Singh btw. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uncalled for is the remark on block evasion. And it’s well known that Pashaura Singh is controversial. 2600:1016:B029:82EC:5DF5:349A:337C:77A1 (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]