Talk:Sikh religious extremism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Current Article Problems

Current problems

{State any problems you find with the article here}
Singling out a single community for acts that are identified in other and proper articles such as Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency is wrong. These movements did not enjoy full support of all members of the community, therefore to label it with the name 'Sikh' makes it look as if all Sikhs are extremists. Moreover many acts of extremism by Sikh groups involve Hindu groups, as an opponent or adversary. Therfore blame shouldn't be laid squarley on a single group, Hindu or Sikh.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.173.151 (talk • contribs)

Suggestions

{Suggest a way in which the article can be improved}
Lets rename the article to 'religious extremism in indian communities'. Then add Hindu, Sikh, Muslim and even Maoists in India who are getting invloved in religious fundamentalism. Plus how elections in India have been fought upon religious ideologies. The Anti-Sikh riots preceding 1985 general elections, 2002 Gujrat elections before general elections, babri demolition etc. And how a set pattern of public opinion is reflected in elections inspired by 'organised violence' against a single community.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.173.151 (talk • contribs)

As I mentioned previously: Sikh extremism is not specifically limited to India and hence warrants a separate article. For India-specific insurgencies see Terrorism in India --Flewis^(talk) 14:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources

{Add any external Reliable sources here}
[1] A search on google news.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.173.151 (talk • contribs)

Article should be deleted

{State your rationale here if you think this article must be deleted in the case that no sources can be found. Only do so, if you believe this article is hopeless and can not be improved in any way}
In it's current state the article is definitly hopeless and should be deleted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.173.151 (talk • contribs)

Delete: Its a community singling out attempt and stinks of propaganda. The attempts at article show amplifications of single events to trigger prejudice against a single community or to reflect that a particular problem is not limited to a particular society but to all of the societies; something like saying - "Oh, its not just me, everybody is doing it". Its one of the worst kind of propaganda that I've come across on wikipedia. This is hopeless case where finding NPOV sources to the claims put by article starter (whose first interest on Wikipedia is starting this article?) is impossible. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 19:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not the way to decide if an article should be deleted or not. If you really think the article should be delete see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for how to go about this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I have a real problem with the sources used for this article. Third Party, inuedo, and non credible sources. Linking the "Pickled Politics" site a discussion forum is hardly a verifiable source. All sources used should at least have an ISBN number. This article is like using David Irving to say the holocaust never existed. I have added in refrences and am taking out no verifiable refrences. --Sikh-history (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Gilligan is a very respectable journalist, according to you, anyone saying anything on the issues of Sikh terrorism is not credible

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23479477-details/Ken%27s+adviser+is+linked+to+terror+group/article.do

The same is true for Kim Bolan

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2f865541-92ec-4be7-8b61-1482904451f8

Satanoid (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Err yes Andrew Gilligan the man sacked from the BBC and because of who's shoddy journalistic methods a UK Government Scientist committed suicide. Bravo Satanoid. Any dam fool can write an opinion in a newspaper. Produce researched articles with ISBN numbers for verifiability. Kim Bolan works for a Right Wing broadsheet that label hippy's as extremists. Again well done. --Sikh-history (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than sending this straight to deletion, would you be willing to re-write the article without the NPOV slant - and only include established sources? As distasteful as this subject may be to some editors, I see no reason why this article could not be written in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion. --Flewis^(talk) 13:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather we should re-name the article as 'Extremism in India' or 'Religious fundamentalism in Indian communities' and have Hindu extremism, Muslim extremism and Sikh extremism as sub-sections. The extremist activities of Hindus (an everday affair nowdays as per news reports) and Muslims and Sikhs should be mentioned collectivly as to how Fundamentalist activities are part of Indian set-up. Moreover the involvement of 'state officers' from armed forces in pursuance of Hindu extremist activities are widely reported in established newspapers. If you move the article, reliable sources can be used for defining religious fundamentalism in India and Indian communities out of India. This is more plausible option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.173.151 (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh extremism is not specifically limited to India and hence warrants a separate article. For India-specific insurgencies see Terrorism in India --Flewis^(talk) 14:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've been invited here to put in my thoughts. I think that if the article can be fixed so it's reliable, then let's keep it. If there's too much edit warring and no helpful editing, then let's delete it. 1. The title should change to possibly fundamentalism like it is for the Islam fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism pages, or a specific name for it like Hindu fundamentalists are Hindutvas. Also change it to be NPOV, using reliable sources and all that good stuff.

But I don't know. As Sikh fundamentalism would fall under the Khalistan Movement, and Punjab Insurgency. In that case, this article should be deleted and those articles should be improved upon. Deavenger (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to articles about extremism in Sikhism, but let us keep it in perspective. Has this article been created in Good Faith? Let us used verifiable sources rather than blogs, extremist websites and third hand journalist sources. I want to see studies from Professors from UK, America and India.--Sikh-history (talk) 00:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. There should be articles about extremism in Sikhism like any other religion. But the thing is, there are other articles like the Khalistan movement or Punjab insurgency, which is basically Sikh extreminism anyway. So, is this article actually necessary as there are other articles there for this instead.

Also, do you think Khustwant Singh should be used? Deavenger (talk) 03:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Khushwant Singh is not reliable source for Punjab related issues as he has not written any respectable account of the times. During the movement times, Khuswant Singh was the one who would travel along with K. P. S. Gill in his gypsy and so he kept saying the police is right in their custodial and fake encounter deaths perhaps because he was "obligzed". Later, after reading the reaseach work Reduced to Ashes (book) he changed his stance and wrote ""It is spine-chilling.... Well, Mr Gill, it is not rubbish; you and the Punjab police have quite a few awkward questions to answer". --RoadAhead ^Discuss 04:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with the majority decision so far, that this article should be deleted. User talk:Deavenger is right, we already have articles Khalistan movement, Punjab insurgency or Behzti etc dealing with this information, those articles can be improved. Also, B.Raman and Khuswant Singh etc are not reliable sources on this matter. B.Raman is famous for his Anti-Sikh hate articles in India. --Irek Biernat (talk) 18:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone again that deletion is not decided here. If you really think the article should be deleted, go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Flewis on this, its a stupid idea to classify it as Indian Terrorism since India is itself the target of fundamentalist terrorist groups. (No prizes for guessing that one folks) and Yes, Sikh terrorism does exist outside of India as the bombing of Air India Flight 182 killing 329 Air passengers shows, and not forgetting the banned Sikh terrorist organizations by EU/US and Canadian Governments.

It seems as if anyone who disagrees with Sikh terrorism is a fundamentalist, I'd like to point out that....

Tags are being OVER used a POV graffitti on this article Judging by the amount of zeal on display, the article certainly warrants to remain and not be brushed under the carpet

Satanoid (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Reason is because Sikh extremism or whatever name you choose for it, occurs within the parameters of Khalistan movement. It does not extend beyond that. And a search on google books make that clear that the subject is treated as a sub-section under Khalistan and or Punjab Insurgency, by scholars and historians alike. 117.96.144.140 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Respected User Talk: 117.96.144.140, as User talk:DJ Clayworth has already explained that this article can not be deleted by giving our Delete votes over here. We need to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please save your vote and follow this article. --76.103.243.116 (talk) 08:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically you need to go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sikh_extremism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

News Article and Website Links Should be Removed

I have been checking the website links and links to newspaper articles, and have come to the conclusion they are mostly sensationalist. They should be removed and only verifiable sources added given the delicate nature of the subject. There is a lot of FBI said this, or so and so organisation said this, but what of the facts?--Sikh-history (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussion

This article is one of the worst I have seen in Wikipedia in a long time. It reads like a news report; it is relevant only to a very small part of the subject it claims to cover. Parts of it are copied verbatim from other places on the web, and others are copied with only minor changes. It voilates NPOV. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, it is based on fact and not POV hence the number of well sourced references. The content is not the issue here but the style is.

To Singh6. This article is not POV as you suggest, its simply dealing with the issues surrounding religious fundamentalism no one is suggesting all Sikhs are extremist, but some may well be- its s fact of life.

I will stress again, that bullying admins into removing subjects surrounding religious fundamentalism is not in the interest of free speech or Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 12:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact is there is not a single terrorist attack on national or international scale by any Sikh extremist group in near memory. The bombing of Air India belongs in Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency articles. There is no point in simply starting a seperate article for a single terrorist attack. And throwing in hotch-potch of minor threats by some fundamentalist protesting group does not deserve an article either. And Jagat Narain was NOT an investigative journalist, he was OWNER of a newspaper group and a prominent politician and was Arya Samajist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.173.151 (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The style is a serious problem, but the content is also a problem (though to be fair it is better than when I wrote the above). Let's fix both. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's try to make this a featured article

Sikh extremism and Hindu terrorism and valid topics and should not be deleted under pressure from self-rightous religious extremists.

Here a list of sources that can be used to shape this article into a featured article:

• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22sikh+extremism%22
• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22sikh+terrorism%22
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q="Sikh+extremism"
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q="Sikh+terrorism"

Punjab Trauma can provide very useful material on this topic.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.100.127 (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it highlights the very problem it is unable to deal with and control - freedom of speech and terrorism - yet espouses to be.... Satanoid (talk) 14:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Tell the Truth

I believe that not fight or quarrel like children but only write or say what's really true and bring it forth so then afterward a decision could be made which would be the best and most unbiased possible. Wjkk20 —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC).

Use of tags

Use of irrelevant tags by orthodox Sikhs to make this article look bad is disturbing.

• The article doesn't use primary sources. It uses third-party sources from US, UK and Canada.
• 14 footnotes are enough.
• It is already wikified
• etc.

Also, some tags were repeated. For example, {{articleissues}} includes factual accuracy disputed and orphan (internal links missing). So, separate tags are not needed for these.

So I've removed the irrelevant tags. Now I'd like to ask what "factual accuracy" is disputed in this version - every sentence is referenced? What context is missing? What is essay-like about the article? If these tags are not removed, let us file an RfC or go for mediation. 59.164.105.254 (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Please Sign Your Contributions

Hi everyone. Clearly there are a not of new editors here. Please make absolutely sure you sign whatever you write on talk pages by adding four tildes at the end of what you write, like this ~~~~. The tildes will be expanded to you username, plus the time and date. Please do this even if you are editing anonymously. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD challenge

I challenge people who've supported deletion of this article in the #Deletion section above to nominate this article for deletion. The article is well sourced and the topic is valid.

• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22sikh+extremism%22
• http://books.google.com/books?q=%22sikh+terrorism%22
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Sikh+extremism%22
• http://www.google.co.in/search?q=%22Sikh+terrorism%22

Waheguru is witnessing us all. Those who misinterpret the Gurus' teachings and support terrorists and extremists will get their due. Sat Sri Akaal. 59.164.105.254 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

59.164.105.254 that can be interpreted as a threat. You must not threaten other editors, even implicitly, and if you do so again you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't threaten to kill anybody. Did I? I'm just asking people to take the matter to AfD, because I know that their shallow arguments will be exposed. Sat Sri Akaal is a Sikh greeting, please educate yourself. 59.164.105.254 (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Writing "Those who misinterpret the Gurus' teachings and support terrorists and extremists will get their due." can be taken as a threat. Do not write such things again. Feel free to talk about AFD as long as you refrain from writing anything that can be taken as a threat. It is a condition of editing Wikipedia that you are able to talk civilly to those who have differing opinions from yours. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me specify I wasn't pointing to any editors. I was referring to terrorists who have killed the innocent during the Punjab insurgency. I'm clarifying this and I am sorry if anybody was offended - I just want to contribute content here. I've lost my family members in violence by Sikh extremists and Hindu extremists in two different incidents, and I hate them both. I do not hate any editors involved here. 59.164.105.254 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sentence, "I've lost my family members in violence by Sikh extremists and Hindu extremists in two different incidents, and I hate them both" proved your POV standing. So you are working on wikipedia to spread your hate?--Irek Biernat (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't actually, just because someone hasn't had a family member killed killed by Sikh terrorism or Qaeda doesn't mean they have to be supported either. Satanoid (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough, please!. Let's not accuse people of anything here. And you may not use Wikipedia to express your hatred of any group, whether they are editors or not. Any more violations of Wikipedia:Civility will be met with blocks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

I think we should change the name to Sikh Fundamentalism, as calling it extremism seems POV to me, and it can't really be called terrorism as there hasn't been any in recent memory, and that would fall under Punjab Insurgency more. Thoughts? Deavenger (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think we should merge the article in Khalistan article. Also as someone has provided google books link above, it becomes pretty clear that the subject is treated as only as sub-heading under Punjab Insurgency or Khalistan movements, by scholars and historians alike. It does not have international parameters and is part of Punjab Insurgency of 80's and 90's, barring a single air-plane bobmbing that too involved Indian nationals and Khalistan. Also, as earlier pointed out, the term "Sikh Extremism" is a dead rat, see a search on google news returns a paltry 28 results and majority still end up talking about 'Hindu Terror'.[2] Compared to Hindu Extremism which returns a whopping 689 results [3]. Wow. 117.96.144.140 (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Misguided Essentialism - Vote for Deletion of the article

The title of this article is essentializing an entire community of roughly 25 million Sikhs with the label "extremism" or "fundamentalism". If you want to be accurate and precise, which should be the goal in any scholarly endeavor, then, first define what you mean by extremism and then provide specific instances of that behavior by specific individuals and/or groups. Calling an entire community extremists is a bit extreme in my view. This is a new dialectic in the George Bush regime to use categories such as these to label entire communities, which include children who don't even understand their import. I strongly support the deletion of this article. Articles should be written on specific individuals and groups to describe how they conduct themselves--"Sikh extremism" or "Sikh fundamentalism" is too broad a brush with which to malign an entire community. Let's first delete this article and then focus on specifics not generalizations since they always hurt innocent people. Zafarnamah (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt 'essentialize' anything; there are articles on Hindu Fundamentalism, Islamophobia and Neo-Con Evangelical groups, the same argument applies to all faiths, and I have to say that the fundamentalists are always the first to challenge/undermine/manipulate the validity of the fundamentalist 'tag' to their respective faiths. Satanoid (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

One wrong does not make another wrong right. Innocent children and majority of people in a faith are tied to the label "Sikh" "Hindu" "Islmaic" - generalizations and essentialisms are wrong and must be contested at all levels. By using words like "Sikh extremism" you are saying that this characteristic is essential to the faith and its adherents. And you know that is not true. Have the courage to stand up and say it is wrong instead of following what others have done. Think independently -- this is the problems with the entire Indian subcontinent; people refuse to use their own brains. Zafarnamah (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No... this is simple English. In the phrase Sikh extremism, Sikh is an adjective to describe the noun extremism. It denotes that there is a Sikh-form of extremism, which is true for any faith really, whether Muslim or Buddhist (where did the Manicheans in China and Persia go, you two?). Like, Christian salvation, or Jain pacifism, or whatever, and in fact by using these adjectives, it implies that this is not the only form of extremism, salvation or pacifism or else it would be redundant. Nothing about it is a declarative statement which states that all Sikhs are extremist. --Enzuru 10:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

We know it exists, so whats the point of hiding it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 22:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The play Behzti

This is ridiculous to mention the protests against the play, by 400 hundered people and not Sikh Extremists, as has been made out in the article by some editor. This is completely biased lie, when the reference does not even talks about any 'extremist activity'. [4] I have removed it as it is a mass protest not extremism 117.96.151.76 (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You appears to be correct, provided reference does not have word extremist at all, and link uses word "400 protesters " and not "extremists". --Singh6 (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article404969.ece Satanoid (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The journalists for this article were not at the demo's and have provided no evidence when questioned as to the validity of their claims.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Soon Noam Chomsky will just be pulling stuff from his ass, eh? Times is reliable, from my knowledge. --Enzuru 10:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted Enzuru, I wouldn't take Sikh 'histories' waste for granted and neither does anyone else by the looks of it Satanoid (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop vandalism by user:Singh6

The Please read the references provided instead of deleting them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article404969.ece Incidentally, The Times is a reliable British newspaper Satanoid (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Which reference did I delete?, I was re-structuring the article so that editors could see the relationship of all the contents with existing wikipedia articles, i.e. Khalistan movement, Punjab insurgency and Bezhti. --Singh6 (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if you spent less time defacing or manipulating the article, and reading it you would see the reference above from The Times Newspaper

• Times Online - Extremists hijacked play protest It says 'Extremists' Satanoid (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What a liar! There is no use of the word 'Sikh extremist' even in that and as Sikh protestor pointed out, the people who smashed in might have not been Sikh. Shame on such pathetic lies.....

Here is the quote liar “There was a peaceful group of people reciting prayers in the corner. Others who were chanting were the ones who burst into the theatre. Some of them did not seem to be Sikhs." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.148.119 (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of them did not seem to be Sikhs? That implies the others, if not the majority, were Sikh. --Enzuru 10:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP is implying all sorts, again I'd rely on the News accounts —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 10:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

References used as a pack of lies

References

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_08_fo4_sikh.pdf

This has been used as a reference when there are at-least a dozen people involved in the conversation. Putting words in someones mouth is a very easy task here as there is no attribution. Seriously defective.

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7263211.stm

Quote "Chief of the Punjab Police, NPS Aulakh, said money was reaching militants from British-based supporters via informal funding channels in the Sikh community." Are those sending money extremist groups? Do they know for what purpose is the money being used ? who are the people?

Quote - ""Definitely some of the money was being used to fund militant activities in the Punjab," he said." is it possible that the money is being symphoned off for the other purposes it is being sent? Charity?

Quote - ""The vast majority of Sikhs want nothing to do with them but they must take some of the blame," he said." should every Hindu take blame for Hindutva?

• http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23479477-details/Ken%27s+adviser+is+linked+to+terror+group/article.do

Doesn't use the word 'sikh extremism' in any vagueness. The only extremism talked about is related Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency. It's like labelling the entire US Army for some few prison incidents!

• http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/sikh-politics-canada/index.html

those seen in the picture, aren't hoding any gun are they extremists?

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4170297.stm

another reference used to define a term it does not even mentions!

The article is a pack of lies and random references and reports from 'journalists' 'reporters' and 'speculative journalism' are being used to advance a hypo-thesis in the form of the article. Take out all events relating to Air-india Bombing, Khalistan, Punjab insurgency and see where it stands! And the play 'Behzti' is not even remotly related to extremism, Sikh or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.141.100 (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bullying, intimidating, threatening and manipulating

I have a simple question for those who don't agree with Sikh Extremist/Terrorist activities or claim not to anyway?

Are you speaking on behalf of most Sikhs who condemn terrorism and wish to expose the insecure mentality of extremists, or do you simply not want the issue to be known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Example of propaganda tactics

Satanoid, is misusing the references by wrongfully attributing his/her POV to references. Check the following text: "Prime Minister of India Dr Manmohan Singh has been critical of Sikh terrorism, he was once the finance minister under Indira Gandhi who was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards". The references say nothing about this claim as noted and removed already here by Deavenger. The second part of this sentence is "appeal to emotion" and part of propaganda tactics which should have no place on wikipedia. Nevertheless,Satanoid comes back and re-introduced the wrongful attribution again. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

While the first of those references merely quotes an adviser to the Prime Minister, in the second the PM clearly states his "concern": "Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said last week that his government is concerned about "credible information" it has obtained showing that the remnants of Khalistan groups in Canada, the U.K., Germany and Pakistan are regrouping." DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Did he say Sikh extremists ?. I believe Khalistan is a political thing. --Irek Biernat (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That article in fact supports many WP:FORK issue related delete arguments at AFD for this article. The article by Kim Bolan is not defining anything relating to "Sikh Extremism", it is talking about "Khalistan" not ""Sikh Extremism" or "Sikh Terrorism". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

While Khalistan is related to Sikh terrorism. To DJ, the line I removed, the source mentioned Sikh Terrorism, but it didn't once mention that Dr. Singh said anything bad about that. Which is why I removed the sentence but kept the source. About the source of credible information, then add that please.Deavenger (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops! This could be a huge claim as well Deavenger my friend. Saying "While Khalistan is related to Sikh terrorism ....", is again a POV depending upon whom one is asking. The Sikh community does not endorse any kind of "terrorism" regardless related to Khalistan. By the way, the Sikh organizations allege that there was a "Third Agency" in Punjab during those times whose sole aim was to commit crimes in the name of Khalistan to sabotage the political movement. The role of Congress of first letting situation deteriorate, then undemorcratically imposing President's rule in Punjab, then electing its own party via fake elections and then elevating goons and anti-social elements to highest ranks of law and adminsitration in Punjab should be kept in mind as well. So lets not jump to conclusions here and keep our minds open. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that PM Dr Manmohan Singh, (a sikh) who is the democratically elected PM of India does NOT condemn proscribed terrorist organisations ? All democratic governments condemn terrorism Satanoid (talk) 16:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Its not propaganda.

Satanoid, Let me request you to stop paying WP:UNDUE attention on religion in your arguments; I did not say anything about the religious affiliation of current PM of India in my concern (see above) to which you are responding. You are even hijacking my concern to something else. My concern was that the sources are being wrongfully attributed of something they are not talking about and not what the Indian PM thinks, or how he is elected. You claim this article is not just a WP:POVFORK of article Khalistan and then ironically use sources that are talking about Khalistan to support your POV of "Sikh Extremism"? If this article is a different topic from Khalistan and has enough notability and verifiability why are you using confusing sources and language? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all admin to voted to keep the article

I would like to say that in the name of freedeom of expression, fairness and the fight against religious fundamentalism, it is to the credit of all the admins (Flewis, DJ Clayworth, KnowledgeHarmony) that Wikipedia remains one of the best encyclopeadia web sources to date. Thanks again.

Satanoid (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Irish Extremism

Are there some parallels with Sikh agitation and Irish agitation for a free Ireland? --Sikh-history (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You would need to discuss that on the relevant page(s) Satanoid (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No I think I will discuss it where I feel it is relevant. --Sikh-history (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat, but does it matter? That is delving into original research! --Enzuru 10:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for partial revert of Sikh-history edits

Hi all find below the reasons to revert some of the edits made by Sikhhistory in the article mainspace:

• TRANSCRIPT OF “FILE ON 4”- ‘SIKH GROUPS’ it does talk about connection between al qaeda and sikh groups look at pp 7-8

There is no evidence to support this. Just some person interviewed. There is a disclaimer at the beginning of the transcript that it may not be accurate and therefore is not reliable.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at my response to the CBC links below. LegalEagle (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Times is a reputable source and one cannot just question the integrity of neutral reporters and castigate the report unreliable just on the rationale that onsidering no journalist or Sean O’Neill and Nicola Woolcock were at the Behzti protests, where did they learn that the Sikh Federation were present there? .

Precisely, where did they find out there were ISYF people there if they were not there? That is because they have no credible source. There were no journalists there. I was a vehemt critic of the Behzti protests, but in real life I actually persued many of these journalists for their sources. Not one has managed to come back to me with a source. --Sikh-history (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Going by this logic then no reporter can write an article if s/he is not present at the place of incident. LegalEagle (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Both the CBC links [5] [6] substantially increases and broadens an average readers perspective on the issue so it would be unjust to delete them on weak reasons like This link is ridiculous, This link is meaningless and seems to link Indan Intelligence.

No this link does not, because this is ONE politicians view. See his fellow Liberal Party Ministers view ( Liberal MP Sukh Dhaliwal was asked if he found the displays at the parade problematic. He did not. "I don't know why we're making a fuss about Surrey," he told the CBC) who saw no problem with the parade and could not understand why an issue was made of this. The link to the book is rightly deleted because it points the finger at Indian Intelligence and NOT Sikhs. Please try and read your own evidence.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If you pursue the links carefully and watch the accompanying videos you would find that it was only one MP who thought that parade was not problematic but others including one who attended and some representative of the premier said that they did not know that the parade glorified 'mass murderers'. So in the second video when the news is edited and the views of the MPs shown in a split screen we find that only one MP saw no fuss but the rest found it disturbing. The links are thus very important to understand the shifting contours of sikh extrimism in canada. LegalEagle (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• Milnet is a reputable source on intelligence matter (again this is my perception which i would try to prove to be right in the next few lines) at par with global security. It collates information from public sources and hence it may sway by disinformation but then most of the articles in general press also mention many facts which are from released public data so can we also label all such reports as false.

The quote I made was from Milnets own website. See the first page. It is therefore an unreliable source.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Most of the articles on nuclear armaments and capabilities of various

countries on wiki are based on calculations done by global security org website which carries similar disclaimer thus only if something is based on public information it would not become by default unreliable, going by your logic then wikipedia would be completely unreliable because no original research is allowed and information are collated from publicly known source. LegalEagle (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have also changed the quote of Professor Mark Jurgensmeyer to the title of the article as a quote from a 10 page article would be more povish.

I have reverted back what you stated as this quote is key to understanding Mark's paper. You have tried to imply a tenous link between Bin Landen and Bhindranwala. The paper is not actually about this. In any case why be afraid of what the Professor has written in his own paper.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are trying the wrong key. I fail to comprehend why you feel that one should be afraid of anyone else's views because democracy allows free dessimination of ideas (maybe theocracy has other views), but when you quote one sentence out of 21 page document and claim it to be the ratio (a legal term meaning roughly the heart and soul of a document) then I have no option but to disagree with you. LegalEagle (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have not changed the deletion of the link to 'The Death of 329 Passengers killed on board Flight 182, the worst aviation disaster pre 9/11' as it did not focus/mention the matter in hand i.e sikh extremism, also as rightly pointed out by sikhhistory according to wiki's policies blogs are generally understood to be unreliable sources hence British Sikh extremists exposed was rightly deleted.

LegalEagle (talk) 15:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Leagleagle, I remember putting this up as a reference, but it got deleted (as did many other references)

On the issue of that site being a blog, actually the information is based on the transcript you yourself provide here

• TRANSCRIPT OF “FILE ON 4”- ‘SIKH GROUPS’ and it was added by an admin, not myslef.

I agree that reports collated by International intelligence agencies will always be questioned by fundamentalists, just as the claim that the Air India bombing was the work of a government conspiracy or that Kim Bolan in a secret Indian agent.. ad infinitum, I think you were right to modify/delete S.H 'contributions' thanks Satanoid (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi satanoid it is better not to use blogs try to use alternate reputed sources. LegalEagle (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Please not not create bad faith by accusing me of being a fundamentalist. My parents are both Hindu and I am a Sikh by conversion, so do not even think of making such claptrap up. Kim Bolan writes for a RIGHT Wing broadsheet that always targets minority groups.--Sikh-history (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, Your approach is strange to me. I had spent quite a time to analyze the issue with using the GlobalSecurity web article, posted the problems here and also invited you for views when you said you were busy. Now you say, "..Milnet is a reputable source on intelligence matter (again this is my perception which i would try to prove to be right in the next few lines) at par with global security". Did you even read the comments above? Did you see the glaring mistakes in that article from GlobalSecurity that I pointed to here? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss=

21:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If I may chime in. To point out what LegalEagle said earlier, I don't see such a zeal in the Operation Bluestar article regarding sources. To put it quite simply, the issue here is the reliability of the sources and the claims presented therein. In that context, we can rewrite the sentences in such a way as to make that evident. You cannot simply delete or remove a source simply because you do not agree with it. You may remove it if there are issues with the source itself (in the context of WP:RS). If you really feel that GlobalSecurity fails RS, bring it up for discussion at WP:RS. --vi5in^[talk] 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh-history

Kim Bolan has won many journalist awards. Secondly she is Jewish not some right winger as you seem to be fabricating here. Satanoid (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You can be Jewish and be Right wing. Furthermore, please be cicvil and do not accuse people of lieing. It is only a matter of time before you are found out Satanoid and you will follow people like HariSingh, who tried to create bad faith and an extremist point of view.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are being rude and breaking good faith, stop polluting the talk page with this childish nonsense. It was enough to state that whether she is conservative or liberal, that she is an award-winning reporter. The same goes for Daniel Pipes. --Enzuru 23:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enzuru, on the contrary, I have a track record of being civil, but when I see comments like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Enzuru&diff=prev&oldid=254812699 then even the most civil of people get antagonistic. If someone made a comment about the Prohpet Mohammed (PBUH), that how did he die, was he run over while out shopping? I am sure you would be angry.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest brother, it seems more senseless than insulting. We both know how Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him and his family, and our beloved Baba Guru passed away, I thought his point there was senseless. Both Sikhs and Sikh literature itself attests to it, can you tell me if there is some mass conspiracy to hide it? Because I haven't seen one. But I see that he is being rude as well, so I've included him in my criticism too. I haven't been here long enough to know who started what, but only children argue over who started it. I know you're getting angry, because I get angry like a Pathan on Wikipedia too, but I know it's something we can transcend. It's a great honor to be able to edit on such important topics, and it is so hard sometimes to live up to the truth that we have to as Sikhs of Baba Nanak, to honor his teachings through our actions. --Enzuru 21:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why Enzuru felt Sikh-history was being uncivil; I've not seen any such instance of incivility from him. However, this comment from Satanoid is highly uncivil and obnoxious statement which unearths his hidden hatred which he is pursuing here on wikipedia. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

That was a hideous comment he made (at least how it sounds, from my perspective his intention was different until people pointed out that they found it extremely insulting), but I'm not going to keep pointing fingers at who said what just so we can start arguing like children. Yes, I do think Sikh-history has had his share of rudeness, even if not as much. Whether you think you did something wrong or not, just tone down the language, that's all I think needs to be done. --Enzuru 22:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enzuru, I do not think you are fullly aware of the sockpuppet and spoofing history of our friend Satanoid, and how a number of his IP's were blocked and banned. If you scroll up you will get the entire history. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather judge him by what he is attempting to present, as rude as it may be, than whatever his nefarious past may be. But yes, the rudeness is out of line and needs to stop, since people seem to agree that he's being rude. --Enzuru 08:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Drama!

I wanted to note a few things I've read through while going through the talk page.

• Globalsecurity sucks according to quite a few people here.
• Everyone has lost good faith in each other.
• I thought I had more points than this, so I'm going to make this a point and stop here.

This really isn't the end of the world / cycle of life and death. The solution is this:

• Use other sources aside from Globalsecurity. Why? Because first, using a single source alot unless it is the the best source in the world like the Aga Khan I article uses almost exclusively is ghetto. Second, if you can only find one source that emphasizes your point, most likely you're molesting Wikipedia:UNDUE and this article shouldn't even exist. Do I think that's the case with this article? Certainly not.
• Please have good faith. While sometimes our visions may be clouded through feelings of hatred or injustice, we have to remember the teachings of respect that have been passed down to us, whether in the form of Islam or Sikhism, whether through the mouths of an Aga Khan or Sikh Guru. No one here is trying to kill each other, we are cooperating on an international scale to bring what we believe the truth is to the billions of people worldwide. Keep the mission in mind. While there are certain motherfuckers out there, I think we should keep in mind most human beings live their lives seeking truth, very few seek evil or falsehood. Do you really think each of you is trying to purposely mislead people? I don't think you do, you're better than that. --Enzuru 11:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enzuru, GlobalSecurity isnt the only source, as Leagleagle has shown:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/26_02_08_fo4_sikh.pdf TRANSCRIPT OF “FILE ON 4”- ‘SIKH GROUPS’

BBC, CBC, The New York Times. We have covered this, thanks Satanoid (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, there shouldn't be controversy about that aspect then. Now, how about some good faith? --Enzuru 23:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately that transcript cannot be used as a refrence because it reads at the start "THE ATTACHED TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A RECORDING AND NOT COPIEDFROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT. BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF MISHEARING AND THEDIFFICULTY IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS COMPLETE ACCURACY.". If the BBC cannot vouch for its accuracy how can we?--Sikh-history (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that refers to individual words, not to the entire idea of the transcript itself. There however should be some MOS to follow in regards to using sources like this. --Enzuru 08:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If the BBC can't vouch for its accuracy as you suggest, then they wouldn't have broadcast it. Either its accurate or its not, in which case the observer needs to look at the other parallel reports from CBC News, Times of India, New York Times, Rediff etc. These newspapers and major News and content providers can't ALL be wrong, racist, fundamentalist, conspiracy based or anything else you care to accuse them of (apart from being pro-democratic) can they ? Satanoid (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

SH, are you Pidhu The Great of YouTube ? Satanoid (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is not infallible. They have had to back track on shoddy journalism by Andrew Gillighan which led to the suicide/hanging of a UK scientist.They have had to backtrack on the Jonathan Ross affair and suspend him. I have transcripts of Radio 4 interviews that portray Bhindranwala as a Freedom Fighter and a hero? Will you be using those transcripts. They were broadcast in 1983? Also this is the second time you have made insulting remarks about Sikhs, remember the WP:CIVIL policy. Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 23:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is often referenced on Wikipedia, and there is no issue (to my knowledge) against doing so. Unless we have evidence from a MOS, we should treat the source as legitimate. --Enzuru 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but we should focus on making reliable articles less we end up becoming a transcript page of contradictory statements from BBC which is certainly not the intention. From what "Sikh-history" is pointing too, BBC transcript which claims something like "..don't know who said what" certainly cannot be used to attribute words to people (like for example Prime Minister or lets say DGP of police). Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

'CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS' is a real problem for me. If you note on any Sikh articles tend not to have such refrence types.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Globalsecurity reference

The problem is not the article and its references sources be they CBC News, BBC, Times of India, globalSecurity, New York Times, Rediff etc.. its simply that those who voted to have the article deleted are hell bent on proving either the references are POV which is ridiculous, and its leading to unwarranted vandalism and the block by admin.

Lets look at Roadaheads claim on Globalsecurity from Wikipedia ...It sates clearly GlobalSecurity.org, launched in 2000, is a public policy organization whose mission is to be a reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security. Offering its information products through its website, the organization's editorial office is located in Alexandria, Virginia, USA.

Can you just give up on this source? If you want to get anywhere you should be able to prove the same point using other sources, which is very possible. --Enzuru 18:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia being used as a propaganda platform

Article version assessed can be found here

I've finally found some time to sit down and assess this article, the sources, facts and tone. I can only say that the article and subject is even more disappointing than I originally thought while supporting the AFD for this article earlier. There are several issues with the subject matter and analysis shows malicious intent and wishful thinking on part of original/major contributor/s . Leaving that aside, one can clearly note that the core of the article is majorly a copy paste of article from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/punjab.htm Sikhs in Punjab website content which itself has several problems.

Particularly, I found the following problems while looking into the text in question:

Problems

• Sources are unreliable for justifying the extra-ordinary claims made via this article
• Some of the sources have been blown out of context.
• Reference manipulation has been used to justify the article and survive AFD.
• The purpose and modus-operandi of the contributor are suspect. The aim of the article is propaganda and not encyclopedic information.
• After filtering and fixing things what is left behind are just WP:POVFORK of the article Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency.

Primary source being used on the article: The following article is being used the main source http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/punjab.htm. Core of the wikipedia article is verbatim copy paste from this article which is cited 13 times directly. It is then used 3 more times by first copy pasting from this article and then attributing the content to some other source. So in all, this article has been used 16 times in the current text on wikipedia.

Some claims in the current article taking this source and some examples of malicious editing:

• In the 1970s, the Government of India did not respond adequately to Sikh grievances. This led to confrontations between fundamentalist Sikhs and non-Sikh extremist groups which culminated into incidents like Operation Bluestar.
• Operation Bluestar, the assassination of Indira Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguards and the following anti-Sikh riots organized by Congress reinforced Sikh extremism, leading to an increase in the political assassinations
• When the moderate Akali Dal Sikhs led by Harchand Singh Longowal reached a peace agreement with the Government, the fundamentalists condemned him as a traitor and he was assassinated.
• The terrorists started using religion to secure the support of Sikhs for political gain.

Manipulation of the source: The source says “some political parties” started to make use of religion and does not say anything about “terrorists”.

• The United Nations Special Rapporteur's concluded in his February 1997 report that the situation of Indian Sikhs in the religious field is satisfactory.

• In the early 1990s, a number of militant groups tried to impose "codes of conduct" for journalists; these codes carried a death penalty for those who disobeyed. Sikhs belonging to non-orthodox minority sects were also murdered
• The extremists also kidnapped civilians for extortion, and frequently murdered them when the demands were not met. Threats were also made to the minority Hindu populationso as to drive them out of Punjab.This resulted in thousands of Hindus fleeing the state.

Problems with using this source

1. The source has no author or a group of authors (authorship issue).
2. No publish date of the article or revision date, whatsoever. (timeliness issue).
3. It is full of weasel words.
4. Its not a journal and nor really a reliable source as there is no peer review. However, its still heavily cited in the article (13 times directly, plus 3 more times maliciously).
5. This article has no citations at all; there is no source of claims. Did the internet publisher find all these by himself/herself? If not, what are the sources on which the publisher is relying on? Are those sources reliable? As such it is almost impossible to ascertain if the source is facts, just opinion or just another piece of propaganda.
6. This could a perfect example of using something as a primarily source whose source itself is not known and very well could be a unreliable or one sided point-of-view from a “conflicting interest” source.
7. Could there be a special interest issue here? If there is no certainty on this, this source cannot be used in the way it is being used by the contributor.
8. Qualifications of the author? (…even the authorship is not published).

Errors in the major source itself

After enlisting of the citing issues in the previous section, now lets check the accuracy of the source itself with the motive of learning only because first look of the website and article shows its not worth it.

1. Right in the beginning the article states - "The problems that arose in Punjab were due to the religion-based elements who sought to widen the communal divide between the Sikhs and other communities ....". The article starts with a vague topic sentence and one is left wondering about the writers generalizations of Punjab problems and reflecting that they are (all) religion based. Does the writer know all the problems that arose in Punjab? The list is quite long starting from underground water table rising to that of those political ones; are these all religion based?
2. The article calls Nanak "a high class Hindu" which is very absurd. Nanak was born in a Hindu family but he never claimed to be a Hindu, hence such claims by the author/authors just make no sense at all and only expose the quality of the pen. In fact, Nanak proclaimed - "I am neither Muslim nor Hindu".
3. Wrongly states that 5K's are prescribed to Sikh men and creates confusion as if women are not included. The article states - "For men the Sikh religion requires observance of the "5 Ks": Kes (uncut hair and beard); Kacch (breeches); Kirpan (a double edged sword); Kangh (a steel comb); and Kara (an iron bangle)." However, the Sikh Code of Conduct published by SGPC does not have any such different classification.
4. "Kangha" (Punjabi word) is first wrongly written as "Kangh" and then wrongly translated to "steel comb". Kangha or Kangh, whatever one wishes to call, simply means "a comb", from where did the author/author's attach "steel" to the translation?
5. "Kirpan" (Punjabi word for sword) is wrongly translated as "a double edged sword". "Kirpan" simply means "a sword", from where did the author/author's add the adjective "double edged"?
6. The article states "New religious ideologies early in the 20th century caused tensions in the Sikh religion". What are these "new religious ideologies" and why does the author/author's feel they are "new" is not made clear anywhere in the article. Further, what are "the tensions in Sikh religion" that these created according to the author/author's?
7. Then the most ignorant mis-translation is done by translating the name of the political party "Akali Dal" to "Army of Immortals". "Akali" means "pertaining to Akaal" where "Akaal" means "timeless" and is used to describe the Sikh point of view of supreme power that governs the cosmos. "Dal" simply means "a group or a party". This translational inaccuracy (deliberate or not) is very disastrous. It also points that the writer/s of this article have wrongly transposed their learnings from Islam onto Sikh related issues.
8. Further, the article asserts - "In 1966 a compromise was reached, when two new states of Punjab and Haryana were created". First, Haryana was the new state not Punjab. Second, out of the original Punjab 2 new states of Haryana and Himachal Pradesh were cut out with the simultaneous subtraction of 3 major hydro-electric power potential reservoirs from Punjab (Gobind Sagar dam, Pong dam, Salal dam) by mere 0.6 to 1.86 miles.
9. About Bhindranwale the article says, "He preached strict fundamentalism and armed struggle for national liberation". What is "national liberation" here?
10. Weasel words - "....500 followers of Bhindranwale and 150 members of other armed groups". What are these "other armed groups"?
11. Weasel words - "Political representatives informed the UN Special Rapporteur on .....". Which "Political representatives" is the writer/s talking about here? Were they Sikh political representatives, Government or a third party?
12. Weasel words - "The Special Rapporteur was informed by other sources, including non-governmental and religious organizations, that the situation in Punjab had no religious basis, rather it was purely political". What are these "other sources", no particular mention other than vague classification.
13. Weasel words - "Certain Sikh political parties had exploited that situation for their own ends....". What are these "Sikh political parties"?
14. Weasel words - New para started with "According to these sources, the purpose of Operation Blue Star..." which sources?
15. Inaccurate information - "The continued presence of security forces at the Golden Temple was necessary to remain vigilant against any attempt at destabilization. Access to the place of worship had not been hindered". This claim is far from truth, as in fact nobody other than army was allowed to enter the Golden Temple complex for days as the army carried on its post Operation Bluestar "clean up" work.
16. Weasel words - Another para starts "These sources concluded that there was no religious problem, ....." Once again, confusing weasel words. Who are "these sources"?

(the underline emphasis is mine)

Other problems which show no-good faith editing and pov propaganda

Another reference manipulation:

The following text: "Prime Minister of India Dr Manmohan Singh has been critical of Sikh terrorism, he was once the finance minister under Indira Gandhi who was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards". claims "Sikh terrorism". However, the references say nothing about this claim as noted and removed already here by Deavenger. The second part of this sentence is "appeal to emotion" and part of propaganda tactics which should have no place on wikipedia.

Ethical problem-1:

The following is direct copy paste from GlobalSecurity web but maliciously attributed to BBC: "Almost all of the Sikh militant groups in Punjab aimed to create an independent theocratic state called Khalistan through acts of violence directed not only at members of the police and security forces, but also specifically at Hindu and Sikh civilians who did not share their political views."

Lead is OR, makes extraordinary controversial claim but still no references provided

Ethical problem-2:

A contributor who was against AFD pushed the following onto the lead: -

1. “Sikh extremism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an idiosyncratic Sikh beliefs, principles and tenets.”

This lead contribution itself tells a lot about the contributor. However, lets just focus on the text as per Wikipedia policy.

• How was the term “Sikh extremism” coined and where is this definition published?
• Who linked the term “Sikh extremism” to “religious terrorism”
• Where is the research from a peer reviewed highly cited work that tells that the source of this so called “Sikh extremism” (which the contributor equated to “religious terrorism”) is “typically rooted in an idiosyncratic Sikh beliefs, principles and tenets”? In fact, this is a super extraordinary claim. Wikipedia says, “extraordinary claims will need extraordinary evidence”. Not surprisingly, the contributor still found it all right to not provide even a single source, leave aside it being reliable and extra-ordinary.

These are just a few hasty examples from the primary source being used on the article. This source is not at all a reliable source to cite for extra-ordinary claims as done by the article in question and hence its content should be removed from the article. After removing this content, one should revisit the article to see what else is left - nothing other than WP:POVFORK of the articles Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency.

Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Road, I am bit busy now and will later comment in this post, but I must state that rarely have I seen such thorough post in talk page, kudos. LegalEagle (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Global security site may have some defects one being a glaring lack of references but except for peer reviewed journals rarely do reports/articles have sources, one does not find reporters from times or telegraph giving reference whenever they give an information which is in public domain. I think instead of investigating whether lead contribution itself tells a lot about the contributor roadahead should consider googling and replacing the global security info refs which has been used in the article. Also dont broach the topic of POVfork again and again the issue has been done to death in the Afd and there was clearly no consensus so dont just try to push a pov. LegalEagle (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is in reply to Roadahead's post on my talk page inviting me to take a look at this. Sorry – I'm neither knowledgeable about nor really interested in the subject matter, and must respectfully decline.  Sandstein  06:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Because GlobalSecurity has not ONE author, doesnt make it POV, the information gathered over a number of years by GlobalSecurity.org not just regarding Sikh Extremism but also the like of Hamas or al-Qaeda amongst many others makes it a less POV source than say Sikh Extrmists themselves like the ISYF who as I understand are against being labeled fundamentalist terrorists as as is Osama Bin Laden Satanoid (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

User Talk: Roadahead, thanks for doing such thorough analysis. Kudos to you. I fully agree with you that this article is a WP:POVFORK of the articles Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency only. Infact Punjab Insurgency should also be merged into Khalistan movement. I sincerely hope that the respected editors who voted in favour of this article, will read and study the facts which you have presented. This propaganda article must be deleted. --Beetle CT (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What a wonderful analysis by the user Roadahead! I agree with the user above that it is rarely that someone invests this kind of time and critical thinking in writing a response! The editors need to take a close look at Roadahead's analysis and ensure that this article is deleted. Zafarnamah (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analysis of the article and subject matter. Also many of the links to this article do not function and have been withdrawn from source. There is no doubt in my mind that the intention of the author behind this article is entirely malicious. I will be going through each and every link used within the article when I have time. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Enough waiting! Seems like people are not interested to address the real issue. I'll be removing all the claims/statements/source-manipulations stemming from GlobalSecurity source after a few hours. Please do not make unnecessary hue and cry if you cannot see the points that I raised in my analysis above. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 08:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Road, I strongly believe that unilateral action without consensus would harm the article rather than do good. Please read my comments above as made on 30th Nov. Try to achieve a consensus or I would have no option but to report you to administrators for taking suitable action. LegalEagle (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

LegalEagle you and I have both taken unilateral action in the past. The case made by RoadAhead ^=Discuss= is indeed compelling and there has not been any reponses or rebuttal to his points. --Sikh-history (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, I'm once again not appreciative of your behavior and choices. Previously you went onto ad-hominem attack on me and now you are almost close to bullying. I had spent quite a time to analyze the issue with using the GlobalSecurity web article, posted the problems here and also invited you for views when you said you were busy. At the same time, I had also invited almost all the registered editors who took part on this article before but none of editors who were against AFD responded on analysis appropriately except AFD closer "Sandstein" who expressed inability to part-take due to lack of knowledge and interest on the subject matter. You never came back on this topic before 30th Nov (even that response from you came after my objection on 29th Nov), but still found time and continued to give tacit approval to editors who are pursuing propaganda and hate on wikipedia by editing and removing content to support them. In the same effort you said, "..Milnet is a reputable source on intelligence matter (again this is my perception which i would try to prove to be right in the next few lines) at par with global security".Did you see the glaring mistakes in that article from GlobalSecurity that I pointed to here? What should one think about your priorities? Should I think that you want to neglect the mistakes and carry on using unreliable sources with glaring mistakes? ....Now you call my action "unilateral" even when I invited nearly 10 editors (including you) to read and comment on the problems that I pointed to? Please be reasonable in your stand. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Road, quite respecting your zeal to present a pov I was really struck by penchant to pick and choose your support. While in Operation Blue Star you would love to support wide pro millitant propaganda in the guise of 'alleged cruelty of indian army' on the basis of one peer reviewed journal and sources (footnotes) copied from single source but you would not do so for the present article on the basis that global security, a well reputed website, in this particular hasnt given reference. This is a blatant double standards being shown by you, yet you accuse me of giv[ing] tacit approval to editors who are pursuing propaganda and hate on wikipedia. Carrying on from my arguements as given on 30th, I have just one thing to say all the big essay that you have tried to write against globasecurity I think that your overharping on reference issue would have a gaping hole and would be the weakest link, Janes military weekly also rarely gives reference to its astounding claims, does that make it any less reliable. It all depends on the reputation of the source in question and its relevence in the light of the wiki article. Moreover most of the information for which global security was used as a source are for issues which are already in public domain; thus excessive harping on the suitability of global security would show that instead of following wiki norms and presenting a npov idea though discussion you are covertly and overtly trying to manipulate the system and in aiding it to be used as a platform for disseminating false and malicious information. LegalEagle (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi LegalEagle, Prejudice will not help to see what I pointed to in my "big essay" (as you call it) above. Nevertheless, can you show how I am "supporting wide pro militant propaganda"? Talking about or adding facts about abuse of power by army and human rights violations becomes "militant propaganda"? What is so "militant" about it? ....any chance of it being "human" according to your point of view? I don't understand what you are talking about footnotes and "blatant double standards" in your comment and would like you to expand those on the appropriate article "Operation Bluestar" where we can discuss that further. I said your behavior is giving "tacit approval" to Satanoid etc because you skipped replying to my "big essay" which shows several inaccuracies in the GlobalSecurity article (see above) but still kept removing another editor Sikh-history's and my edits from the article. I would like you to also note that my points written above are not "against GlobalSecurity" as you have generalized above; rather they highlight several inaccuracies in that article "Sikhs in Punjab" and the problems associated with using it as the core reference of the article like it was being done by Satanoid. Also, note that what you are trashing as "over harping on references" highlights 16 accuracy etc related problems and 8 problems on using that article as source (in addition to unethical editing of Satanoid; whats your take on those 24 (16 + 8) points in the "big essay" above? If you think other reliable neutral sources for the claims made by using GlobalSecurity article exist, why don't you input those sources as you are already aware of those? Lastly, the claim of "covertly and overtly trying to manipulate the system and in aiding it to be used as a platform for disseminating false and malicious information" is a very heavy claim because a discerning readers of our discussion would first like to know where I have presented "false and malicious information" and how you came to know about the "covertness" and "overtness" factor that you allege. So my friend, lets be reasonable and keep our hearts and brains open even if we disagree. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop calling people prejudiced. What you're doing is critiquing the GlobalSecurity article itself, apparently because you perceive it to contain some unsavoury information. So by questioning what is an obviously reliable source you're simply trying to push your POV on this issue, but removing information that you do not agree with. If you're going to ask for references FOR references, then we can continue doing that ad infinitum. --vi5in^[talk] 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, This is what I meant by the statement which you quickly jumped to call "personal attack" - LeagleEagle has been calling me baised towards some assumed pro Khalistani ideals(of course unwarranted) in our previous discussions; that combined with his not responding appropriately to the points that I raised here made me feel that presence of "prejudice" in his thinking towards me is not helping constructive discussion. Let me point you back to 16 accuracy etc related problems and 8 problems on using that article as source (in addition to unethical editing). Specifically, note 8 problems on using that article as source. You are wrongly classifying my removal of the inaccurate and unreliable information by hijacking my logic behind the removal as "...removing information that you do not agree with". May I request you to re-read the points above to get the logic behind my removal?. Again, you have gone onto assuming by saying -"If you're going to ask for references FOR references, then we can continue doing that ad infinitum" - can you show me where I am saying give me references for references? The main issue is of inaccuracy, unreliability and "no-extraordinary source" capability of this article which is being used to make extra-ordinary claims. Regards,--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello Roadahead, what I meant by the references was that you were claiming that there are no references in the Global Security article itself. I don't agree with your removal of the pieces of text supported by Global Security, but I do agree with you that the article could definitely be written better. Please look at my recent changes and my comment at the end of this talk page regarding those recent changes. --vi5in^[talk] 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Road at least I am not in cohort with people who made a willing experienced administrator who was ready to mediate on a sensitive topic run away because of constant covert accusations of being unfair, so come out of the 'being persecuted' mentality. LegalEagle (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, please stop personal attacks on other editors. Did he ever ask you to come out of Anti-Sikhism mentality. --Singh6 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LeagleEagle, once again you are digressing and not addressing the real issue. May I again request you to address these and these points? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

This article could use a major cleanup. I've cleaned it up a little bit, but more needs to be done. I've definitely noticed blatantly POV statements in this article, in addition a section that did nothing other than list terrorist acts. This really isn't the way to write an article. In addition, the article could be better organized. Finally I also think that some sections fall afoul of WP:UNDUE. I mean, it's evident that Sikh fundamentalists carried out terrorist acts; that's what the article is about. But the article should be about the genesis of the movement, its role in the world and its impact. Not a laundry list of terrorist acts. I hope the other editors here agree with me. --vi5in^[talk] 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now that the page has been protected, can all parties discuss the issue here? I don't want to hear anything as to why the article should be deleted. The article exists and so let's just try to make it read better. I hope my comments above will show that I'm not hear to spread any kind of POV. The article in its current state could use a LOT of improvement. The only thing that I request (and I'm repeating myself) is that you don't harp on whether this article needs to exist or not. --vi5in^[talk] 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Now that the page has been protected" is passive voice which may hide the reality; the page has been actually gotten protected by writer of this line (Vivin). Please note that passive tone has been often used to evade reality and as such this one could be seen as the same. This is what actually happened, first Vivin violated 3RR by continuously reverting to disputed content (example see his back to back revert-5, revert-4, revert-3, revert-2 and revert-1). Seeing which RoadAhead (that is, me) filed 3RR report. After which, vivin rushed to make "a few changes on article while still keeping much of the disputed content" and then rushed to seek page protection. Vivin then came to the talk page acting mediator. See the timeline of these actions from vivin and see the extensive discussion already filed on the talkpage to decide on your own if this is ethical behavior? For me, its an obvious approach of first avoiding discussion and pushing POV via continuous reverts and then evading ban by introducing small edit and asking for page protection to disputed content. Wasn't the discussion already there? Why not rebutt the 24 (16 + 8 ) issues already listed on the talkpage by me many days ago?--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi vi5in^[talk] has not most of the content here been covered in other articles i.e. Khalistan, Behzti etc. Is there really a need for this? The whole question of Khalistan (which is the catalyst for terrorist attacks) is linked to Khalistan. We do not treat the outrages in Northern Ireland as Catholic Terrorism, but as terrorist attacks done by those who want a united Ireland. There really is no need for this page. This can be easily iincorporated in previous pages on Khalistan --Sikh-history (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that there is still a pervasive influence (or echo, if you will) of the Khalistan movement. For example, there are still groups in North America and the UK that demand a separate Sikh homeland. Activists from these movements were responsible for the Air India bombing, and they definitely share extremist viewpoints. Therefore, I believe that the term is definitely encyclopedic. So like I mentioned before, we should describe how the movement came about, its peak (during Operation Bluestar and the demand for Khalistan), and its current state. Right now the article isn't written too well and it also seems to simply list terrorist acts other than talking about the movement itself. --vi5in^[talk] 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On another note, Khalistan and Operation Bluestar are just instances of Sikh extremism and don't actually talk about the term itself. Finally, the as far as the IRA is concerned, it really wasn't Catholic Terrorism since it wasn't based on Catholic Ideology. Of course, a lot of the bad blood was based on Catholic vs. Protestant, but really what it came down to was a separate homeland for the Irish based on being Irish and not just being Catholic. Whereas, the idea for Sikh extremism is based on being Sikh (or their idea of what a Sikh is, anyway). --vi5in^[talk] 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point--vi5in^[talk]. Just as the IRA did not see their form of terrorism as Catholic terrorism, so the Khalistan movement and associated terrorism cannot really be percieved as "Sikh" terrorism. There are dissafected groups in all walks of life. There are no words or terms for a "Holy" war within the Sikh ideoligy. Christianity talks about crusades and Islam about Jehad, wrongly or rightly in some Christian or Islamic eyes, acts of terrorism could be done on this basis. There is no equivalent to this ideoligy amongst Sikhs. In order to have a basis to link Sikhism with terrorism, one would have to prove that there is an ideological link wihin Sikhism that can justify terrorist behaviour. There is none. Therefore as I stated before, any terrorist activity that Sikhs have done are based not on religion, but of a Homeland called Khalistan (that was promised at the birth of India and Pakistan to Sikhs). One aspect that has not been mention is the political wing of the Khalistan movement led by Simranjit Singh Mann, the equivalent of Sein Fein.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Here would be my plan of attack:

• We find an agreement on sources. If we really are getting our panties tangled over a couple sources, then they should be replaceable, and if they're not, we are breaking WP:UNDUE.
• We restart the article, yes, restart it, from scratch, using these sources and strictly following a methodological guideline.

I am not really that excited over the current state of the article. And we should not push WP:Original Research theories if this terrorism is related to Ireland, or is simply a political Khalistan movement. We must rely on what the sources tell us. --Enzuru 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enzuru, I would argue that this article and the premise that there is an organised terrorist movement based on the ideoligy of Sikhism is original research. Any terrorist attacks that have ever occured or carried out by Sikh have been based on the Khalistan movement and not on Sikh ideoligy.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets start by addressing the the lead first which currently says -"Sikh extremism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an extreme interpretation of Sikh beliefs, principles and tenets." I'd already mentioned the problems with lead towards end of my discussion here. The current lead is now a little changed (from what I objected to) but still problematic as it is making big claims and yet is unsourced. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well RoadAhead, how exactly would you define Sikh Extremism? Isn't it an extreme interpretation of Sikh principles and tenets? And haven't these extreme interpretations resulted in violent (terrorist?) acts? --vi5in^[talk] 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, you still don't get it? If I define it wouldn't it be OR and self-publishing? That is exactly one of the issues which was presented here. Did you skip reading that discussion? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, all you have said is that it makes controversial claims. If you really want to split hairs and be extremely pedantic, we would have to define the term extremism and then show that the behaviour of these individuals is extreme. I think we can safely assume all that. We don't need references for things which are immediately obvious. To say "Sikh extremism is a manifestation of an extreme interpretation of Sikh religious principles and tenets" - should be sufficient. Is that better? --vi5in^[talk] 03:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you asked where this term is defined. Here are a few places. We can start there for a good definition. I haven't gone through all that information yet, but it does show that the term exists and is used. --vi5in^[talk] 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi vi5in^[talk], see my comments above about the premise of the article and the presumption that this is terrorism based on Sikh principles. This is clearly wrong.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh-history and RoadAhead, I think you are missing the point in that this article will not be deleted or is not flawed in its concept, because it clearly is a term that is used. Since the term is visibly used (as vi5in just showed) we must use these very same sources to define what Sikh extremism is. If we want to write an entire article on how the term is perhaps part of hate speech, then we can, if that's what most of the sources are saying. But we can't use WP:Original research to discount the term unless the sources themselves are doing that, like was seen in Hindu terrorism where all the sources that referenced it were jesting at the idea of it, hence it was deemed not notable or was simply a fringe view and deleted. So once again, I propose the methodology of outlining a good amount of sources and then from those sources building an entirely new article free of both controversial sources and edits that perhaps aren't done in good will. RoadAhead made points that were deemed acceptable by many about our current use of sources, but I believe we also should come to the consensus that this article is certainly notable using sources aside from GlobalSecurity and anything else perhaps less mainstream. --Enzuru 10:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Enzuru, with all due respect, I am not missing the point. The point everyone is missing is that any Sikh Extremism is not fuelled by religion, or any ideoligy rooted in Sikhism, it is rooted in the Khalistan movement. I would argue that the definition of Sikh Extremism in this article WP:Original research. Any refrence to Sikh extremism should be under the subsection of Khalistan. You don't need an article making unsubstantiated claims that Sikh Extremism is linked to the religion. Now if people want a debate onn Sikh ideolighy and religion then lets have one. The premise and definitions are worng. No one denies it does not exist but is not based on any religious ideoligy. If anything one could link the Khalistan movement directly to the Akali Daal Party and the Congress Party and the dissafection of Punjabi farmers. I have no difficulty in the term Sikh Extremism, but it is wrongly defined. In order to define Sikh Extremism and based in Sikhism one would have to root it in Sikh ideoligy. There is not one refrence that can do this. Regards.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to go around in circles, but what is the Khalistan movement rooted in? It's rooted in the creation of a theocratic Sikh state for Sikhs. Meaning, the basis of the Khalistan movement is the demand for a separate state based on the religion (principle, tenets, what have you) of Sikhism. So Sikh Extremism => Khalistan Movement => Sikh state based on Sikh priciples and tenents. I think we can safely say by transitivity that Sikh Extremism is based on (an extreme interpretation of) Sikh principles and tenents. As Enzuru said, the article exists and is not flawed in its concept. So let's go about trying to source it and write it properly. --vi5in^[talk] 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, if you can cite sources that say Sikh extremism is solely based in the Khalistan movement, then we can put that. What's the problem? If the sources don't claim this, we can't do WP:Original research by claiming it, even if they themselves prove it through their claims. --Enzuru 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let us put it this way, before the issue of Khalistan came to a head in the 1980's was there a single incident of any Sikh being involved in terrorism?--Sikh-history (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, you are still not understanding WP:CITE and WP:NOR- Do you want us to cite your "transitivity theory" in the lead now? Even your OR/POV is not correct. First, "Khalistan Movement" is different if you look up how different people want to define it. GOI (Government of India) may want the world to believe that its "simply religious movement based separatism". However, the Sikhs say its a political demand seeking what was promised to them when they chose to stay with India when the British India was partititioned in 1947. Second, the Sikhs seek implementation of Anandpur Sahib Resolution. (san Jagjit Singh Chauhan, Surjan Singh Gill kinds from my discussion). Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala has been quoted in newspapers on Khalistan issue (just a few examples for now):

"I don't oppose it nor do I support it. We are silent. However, one thing is definite that if this time the Queen of India does give it to us, we shall certainly take it. We won't reject it. We shall not repeat the mistake of 1947. As yet, we do not ask for it. It is Indira Gandhi's business and not mine, nor Longowal's, nor of any other of our leaders. It is Indira's business. Indira should tell us whether she wants to keep us in Hindostan or not. We like to live together, we like to live in India." (stress mine).

"How can a nation which has sacrificed so much for the freedom of the country want it fragmented but I shall definitely say that we are not in favor of Khalistan nor are we against it."

Can I expect a little research from you before your commenting? Sidenote: Even that article of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was under similar manipulations of resources, check the proof on talkpage.--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, I understand WP:NOR and WP:CITE perfectly well. I'm just saying that certain things are immediately obvious. Like I said, the term "Sikh Extremism" exists and is sourced. I'll look up the references I posted to come up with a better definition of the term. Would you ask for a citation saying that the sky is blue? I believe you're being overly pedantic simply because you don't like the idea of Sikh Extremism. Let me ask you a question - do you believe that Sikh Extremism (whatever YOUR definition of the term might be, and I don't mean for the article's sake) exists? --vi5in^[talk] 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, I disagree on your claim about your understanding of WP:NOR and WP:CITE; let me specifically make you read the section "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" on the WP:CITE policy which you claim you understand "perfectly well". And now once again let me point you back to the article lead which currently says -"Sikh extremism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an extreme interpretation of Sikh beliefs, principles and tenets." The claims (underlined for you by me) in the preceding lead are not as simple as "Sky is blue". They are controversial and heavy claims (which will most likely be challenged), not a simple statement. Hopefully for the last time, let me call out loud- "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Instead of arguing about things that have no bearing on this article, how about we start somewhere? Please tell me what YOU think Sikh Extremism is. We can at least try starting from there. Don't quote WP:NOR to me; I'm just asking you what you think it is. I need somewhere to start; I feel like we're going in circles right now without discussing anything. --vi5in^[talk] 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, I disagree that cite-policy-1 and cite-policy-2 including my discussion "has no bearing on the this article". I haven't hit any "extra-ordinary" source so far that can justify these extraordinary claims, so I have not added anything to lead. Wikipedia specifically says - "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for WP:BLP and the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV." Additionally, may I also mention that according to wikipedia rules, "I like it" is equally wrong as "I don't like it". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Did you completely ignore my question? Why are you waffling and deflecting? I didn't ask you about sources. Simply repeating your arguments over and over again isn't going to make your point any stronger. Please answer my question: What is Sikh Extremism according to you? Or if you'd much rather, how would you write the lead of the article to describe "Sikh Extremism"? --vi5in^[talk] 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can clearly see that its not becoming understandable for sure; can only say please re-read the issues above. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 09:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you are either unwilling or unable to understand. You know perfectly well what my question is. The reason is that you personally don't want to legitimize the term by telling me what Sikh Extremism is. All your "issues" that have been posted above deal with trying to invalidate the term "Sikh Extremism". All I have asked you is to tell me in your own words what Sikh Extremism means. But you're unwilling to do that. I can see that you have no desire to improve this article. Enzuru and I will work on it and try to make it into a good article. If you ever want to help, feel free to jump in. --vi5in^[talk] 20:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, I feel that it is actually you who is "either unwilling or unable to understand[7]"? Yes I perfectly know what your question is, however even after repetitive explanations you still don't understand that you are asking the wrong question. Nevertheless, I had already replied[8] to this question. You are again wrong in trying to bundle my complete ongoing argument (since Nov 26th) as "just trying to invalidated the term Sikh extremism"; having already pointed you back to my original posting in my previous replies I will not do this again this time. Begging the question (assuming the answer) is not the solution of the ongoing issue with this article. Also, may I request you to leave guess work on my desires aside? As other editors have pointed out - the underlying title "Sikh extremism" itself is controversial and there seems no reliable information; most of the considerable sources that I've been hitting on the net are making a word salad out of many words as talking about Khalistan; that takes us back to the povfork issue. Thank you for expressing your desire for making a "good article" out of the ongoing discussion, hopefully you will take "all my issues that have been posted" into consideration. I'll do my best to keep abreast the developments, however, I cannot guarantee that I'll be able to support expanding even if the article starts appearing like a coatrak. Cheers--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I understand very well. I'm not sure what your definition of "explanation" is, but repeatedly linking to a critique of the term "Sikh Extremism" doesn't quite do it. You manage to say a lot while saying very little. I'm removing myself from this current thread. I can see that it won't go anywhere, and that you simply can't even bring yourself to define the term, inspite of references that support it (a direct invalidation of your "word salad" claim). --vi5in^[talk] 03:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, by "explanation" I meant the repetitive description of the problem that I have been trying to put across in my talks with you. No I have not linked to any critique of the word "Sikh Extremism" in my previous reply, did you assume the 2 links are pointing to there? (they are not). Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Rebuilding the article from scratch, without the POV nonsense

I've started to rebuild the article from scratch. You are all invited to contribute: User:Vivin/Sandbox/Sikh_Extremism. --Enzuru 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Enzuru! Now we're getting somewhere! --vi5in^[talk] 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Enzuru I think it will be a good idea to add a second last section (keeping reflist as last) specifically for discussions or comments on the content that anybody adds. May I also suggest, that the rules on the sandbox page should also included that sources with disclaimers on accuracy should not be included, eg -"BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF MISHEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS COMPLETE ACCURACY". . Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia policy that cites that? I don't see any problem in adding a source as long as you provide a disclaimer with it. For example we can cite whatever claim is made and then say that "... although the BBC published a disclaimer and has expresses reservations regarding the source because of the risk of mishearing and the difficulty in some cases of identifying individual speakers." It doesn't make the source any less valid (especially since it is the BBC we're talking about here) --vi5in^[talk] 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You can create that section if you would like RoadAhead, but don't you feel this talk page will work just as well? In fact, the article had its own specific talk page, but I edited it so it forwarded to here. You can edit that talk page so it doesn't redirect to here. Anyway, how much could that transcript really differ from that actual event? Do we have a Wikipedia policy against using transcripts that might be slightly inaccurate? Why can't we just note it when we use it as a citation? --Enzuru 02:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks, firstly that BBC transcript in question is supposedly a transcript of talk between a few individuals and does not serve an exceptional source for kind of claim it is intended to be used here( WP:NOTSOAPBOX, particularly see "opinions" section under this policy. Wikinews may accommodate such transcripts). Secondly, if we still consider inclusion (out of leniency) it can only be included as a "statement of opinion" of specific notable individuals and not "statement of fact". Even then, there is a real problem when the disclaimer says something like -"..can't guarantee who said what?" (in addition to "no guarantee of accuracy"). So now whom do we attribute the statement of opinion to? This is a clear WP:VERIFY violation. (PS: Its fine to have discussion here as well, just thought it would be convenient to keep all together). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 09:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

One statement, by itself is not a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. You're completely misrepresenting Wikipedia policy in this matter. The statement is from the BBC, a highly reputable source. It's funny how you're being overanalytical and pedantic with that one source simply because you don't like what it says. I agree that the BBC has expressed reservations about its accuracy (because of the possibility of mishearing things during transcription). But the source itself is not in question so there is absolutely no violation of WP:VERIFY at all. The sentence is sourced and attributable. --vi5in^[talk] 20:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, I am really surprised - did you read my reply above? In short - transcript of talk is simply statement of opinion NOT statement of fact. Those statements of opinion are not that of BBC and need to be attributed to some notable person. BBC disclaimer says "cannot guarantee who said what"; here comes the problem with using BBC transcript to support the idea of "Sikh extremism" - and that is "whom to attribute"? A disclaimer of the type "don't know who said what" is certainly a WP:VERIFY violation in this case and we are neither here to do that verification for BBC nor to use it for supporting controversial claims. Hopefully, the issue is clear now. Cheers, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? Then I guess we need to go to every single source that the BBC has quoted or transcribed and try and find who said what first. Wow. You have to realize that the BBC itself has a measure of reliability and reputation. They don't simply put crap on there that they can't immediately verify. The source stays. If you have an issue with it, take it to WP:RS. We can discuss it there. --vi5in^[talk] 03:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, talkshow => people talk => individual opinions => can only be used as opinions. Now lets say, I want to use BBC transcript of a talk show that had many X,Y,Z talking. There are some comments/views from all people participating on, lets says, the UFO topic. First, I cannot use such transcript (even if its from BBC) and say "UFO's exist" (but if Mr. X is notable on UFO's topic I may be able to say that Mr X says,"..."; but wait see second point). Second, if BBC puts a comment-c1 on UFO's against the name of Mr. X in the transcript (which we are interested in), and then states no guarantee that X said this (via disclaimer), then the WP:VERIFY problem occurs even if I want to attribute this comment-c1 to Mr. X as opinion. In such case appealing to the authority of BBC will be wrong; they have already disclaimed that (via disclaimer). Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I said that we can put the disclaimer in there. But apparently that isn't satisfactory to you either. --vi5in^[talk] 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is when WP:VERIFY violation occurs and we become guilty of WP:ILIKEIT and the fallacy of "appealing to authority". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While deciding if BBC is a valid source, please start contributing to the sandbox with non-BBC sources. Thank you. --Enzuru 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment about the article and second source in talk for the sandbox.--Sikh-history (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't understand why our sandbox is being deleted? If it's in the wrong place, can you move it? --Enzuru 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why either. Perhaps sandboxes aren't allowed in the mainspace? I've moved it here anyhow. --vi5in^[talk] 02:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by roadahead

The problem is not the article and its references sources be they CBC News, BBC, Times of India, globalSecurity, New York Times, Rediff etc.. its simply that those who voted to have the article deleted are hell bent on proving either the references are POV which is ridiculous. Lets look at Roadaheads claim on Globalsecurity from Wikipedia ...It sates clearly GlobalSecurity.org, launched in 2000, is a public policy organization whose mission is to be a reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security. Offering its information products through its website, the organization's editorial office is located in Alexandria, Virginia, USA.

I wander What the extremists have to say about that before editing the Wiki reference ???? Satanoid (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid, as stated before, stop accusing everyone of being extremists. You are in no position to report anything to any admins.--Sikh-history (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll decide what I should report. Satanoid (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Your NOT admin Satanoid (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the basics of wikipedia? --Sikh-history (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You dont get it do you ? Even this discussion has been edited, if I use the word vandalism it get replaced by the words edits

Dont beleive me, then see for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikh_extremism&action=edit&undoafter=257268543&undo=257268636

Sikh history is doing raodaheads dirtywork, its been spotted by many, except you my friend ? Or perhaps you prefer to see with a blind eye ?

Please sign your edits. Yes, I see that insulting things like "Vandalism by x" were changed to "Edits by x". That is very proper. Please. Focus on the content. sinneed (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't agree. While it's obvious Satanoid isn't using the correct definition of vandal, changing an accusation of "vandalism" to "edits" is not correct in someone else's posts on the talk page. How is it hurting that editor if it's complete falsehood? It isn't, and it's not just being used as an insult either. --Enzuru 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If Satanoid feels that my edits are "vandalism" I would encourage the editor to take up this case on the appropriate platform. If the editor does not know what vandalism is, here is the information. If the editor does not know where to file a report, follow this link. Currently, the editing behavior like creating new sections for every comment, continuously calling edits vandalism which other third party editors disagree, reverting information unabated and continuous personal attacks could be viewed as a well understood plan of sabotaging a sane discussion. I feel that most of the editors on this page, including sinneed have been exceptionally tolerant of the behavior of Satanoid. It needs to stop somewhere. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I think that this article should be moved to Sikh terrorism since that appears to be what we are really writing about. Our use of the sources would also be much more appropriate under the new title. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. --vi5in^[talk] 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've also looked a bit on JSTOR and found a good number of articles on this topic. Generally speaking they also orient themselves more around the terrorism, though of course extremism and separatism come up as well. They are all very related concepts but the terrorism stands at the center; the terrorism is what makes the news and generates the controversy. Sikh extremism is notable because of terrorism, not because of social policies as is the case for Christian and Muslim extremism (the latter is noted for both terror and social policies). So the proposed move will get more to the point. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that THIS article is about Sikh terrorism, and that the title is misleading. I do think that an article on Sikh extremism might have a place as well. sinneed (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading User:Roadahead's concerns, I am dubious about the titles Sikh Extremism and Sikh Terrorism... as RA points out, this ties emotionally-charged and to-many insulting words to a group. I somewhat like the Punjab Insurgency and Khalistan Terrorism ideas.sinneed (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, that first reference I added will become entirely proper once the move is completed. I think we should move this as soon as possible, and if editors find enough material about Sikh extremism itself they can write a new article over the redirect. I haven't been following the dispute here for very long; do you expect that any others will object to the move, or can we execute it now? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Folks, move is certainly an option and I suggest moving the content under Punjab Insurgency as compared to a more generalized "Sikh Terrorism". "Terrorism" is once again a very controversial term with many ongoing debates on the definition of this term itself. If we choose, "Sikh Terrorism" instead, we need to work on finding sources telling the motive of terror and who was "terrorized" and what/if is the role of religion in justifying those acts. Again, that new link by 67.194.202.113 talks like "Sikhism is also not free.....", be careful with that type of usage, many places the word "Sikhism" has been used to describe every thing related to society. A general consensus on terrorist activities with that motive (religion) is also needed otherwise we will end up using wikipedia for making WP:UNDUE articles like "Sikh/Muslim/Christian thieves", "Sikh/Muslim/Christian cheaters", "Sikh/Muslim/Christian murderers" and what not. Many of my original issues on the usage of references with trivial explanation on the topic (using words like keywords) are still open. I'll be in war mode on personal and other work for the rest of the week, hoping to refocus on our ongoing discussion off and on in the meantime and more so later after this week.Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Roadahead, I found your comments about the article name very insightful. Thank you. sinneed (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So you are fine with the move? I don't know what you mean about a "general consensus" about religious terrorism; reliable sources discussing this Sikh terrorism almost always mention its religious basis and the theocratic state envisioned by this violent separatism. That they also are keen to attach "extremism" to these factions should make it clear enough that nobody worth mentioning considers mainstream Sikhism a religion that inherently leads to terrorism or embraces this style of violence and associated political goals. These aren't terrorists who just happen to be Sikhs (as may be the case for your thief, cheater, and murderer examples), but rather are noted for drawing upon their specific interpretation of Sikh theology (termed extremist) to motivate and justify their (violent) approach towards the political goals. To ignore the religious aspect of their motives would be to run counter to reliable sources and a responsible summary of the topic. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

67.194.202.113 , please create an appropriate id as the University of Michighan has a networked system, and anyone can edit under this IP. RoadAhead is correct, we need a general consensus first on the definition. Every single account I have read routes Sikh Terrorism firmly in the Politics of Khalistan which has been described as a theocratic-democratic state (in other words even the so called supporters of this have no idea what shape or form it will take). There is nothing withing the religion eg Jehad, Crusade etc) that would lend support to any form of terrorism. The aim of "Sikh Terrorism" is not to see some aim of Sikhism fufiled (ege like Islam, war on the Kafir, or Christianity war on the non-beliver), but to fo9rm the land of Khalistan. One thing I do acknowledge is that any solution to this problem will be two fold i.e. Political, and Religious, but to define Sikh Terrorism as religious terrorism is totally inaccurate.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources describe Sikh terrorism as religious terrorism; your personal opinion on this definition is irrelevant. Religious terrorism often accompanies political goals so I do not understand why you seem to view these as mutually exclusive. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is NOT my personal opinion but the opinion of sources with ISBN numbers. I really don't care about POV's I just want the facts, and the fact is any act of SikhTerrorism has occured as a result of Khalistan, not as a result of religion.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually reading further, Sikh Terrorism does not warrant a seperate topic as it is linked so closely to Sikh Extremism, Punjab Insurgency and the Khalistan question.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That other Sikh issues are related does not change the fact that the sources in this article (and the sources from JSTOR I plan to integrate after the move) discuss Sikh terrorism. There shouldn't be anything controversial about this move, given the vast number of sources that discuss Sikh terrorism. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You are pre-emptying any move. See below. I have studied the Khalistan question for years and from reliable sources and everything being said about the Terrorism aspect seems to be at odds with what is being said by a few people here.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting that despite all of these sources you claim, you generally drag unreliable stuff like khalistan.net to the table. Hey, we'll believe you when you actually present reliable sources supporting your view. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is hosting "Khalistan.net"? I see P. S. Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh (both whom are proponents of Khalistan). I also checked that P. S. Ajrawat represented "Khalistan" at UNPO. If that is the case, these both people (Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh) are notable on Khalistan. Hence, if they are saying that Khalistan will be "theocratic-democratic" or whatever, its notable as well on any place where the proposed governing structure of Khalistan is discussed. Sounds fair? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No, we will certainly not rely on the propagandists and their soapbox websites for the facts. See Wikipedia:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. They can be used to state their opinions, perhaps, but reliable academic publications trump them with regard to general facts in the articles. Hence, if a writer for an academic journal defines Khalistan as a proposed theocratic nation (without saying "democratic"), this will trump the definition provided by the PR websites of the separatists or extremists in question. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. To state facts on this topic, we shouldn't use propaganda from the Khalistan.net site. Likewise, we shouldn't use a site that is based on being completely anti-khalistan, as facts. Deavenger (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear 67.194.202.113, I appreciate your taking collective responsibility of the stance by stating "No, we will not certainly rely..."[9]. However, in an attempt to solve the dilemma about the notability of Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh's statements on the issue of Khalistan, let me invoke a question - who is "proposing" (and are working for) the state of Khalistan? - Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh, right? How is their statement on the "proposed" state (for the realization of which they are working) not notable or unreliable? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what he means is that for stating facts, it shouldn't be used. But use the pro-khalistan site to state the opinions of the people who are trying to push for Khalistan. But not to use sites specifically designed for pro-khalistan agendas and sites specifically designed for anti-khalistan agenda, but use research papers, etc. Deavenger (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely that there is sufficient material for both of these articles, in which case we should go with the more general one (Sikh Extremism) in order to avoid losing any material that isn't relevant to Sikh Terrorism. That the article currently covers only terrorism is not an argument - it might do in the future. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. "Terrorism" is a very strong term, and highly emotionally charged.
Should we go back into every article about any group that has terrorist adherents, and add a terrorism section? I think not. At least 2 editors STRONGLY argue that their voices are being silenced by the resistance to keeping this article about Sikh Terrorism.
With that thought in mind, perhaps we might move ahead with the creation of the Sikh Terrorism article, and refer to it here. Perhaps those who feel that discussion of terrorism in the Sikh Extremism is excessive will have their voices, without those who strongly feel the need to cover Sikh Terrorism broadly feeling they are being silenced? One has asked not to be included in further discussions, at all, finding the current situation intolerable. sinneed (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*. I'm reminded of a dog chasing its tail. I initially preferred the term Sikh Extremism since it definitely is emotionally less charged compared to Sikh Extremism. But Sikh Extremism might be too general, since it mainly has a political aspect (rather than religious or ideological), although the religious angle cannot be ignored. Most of these "extreme" acts by pro-Khalistani elements have been in the form of terrorism. If we wanted to be overly pedantic, we could have a "Khalistani Terrorism" article (being a little facetious here). But that article wouldn't be any different from Khalistan movement. Sikh Terrorism/Extremism, by itself would have to examine and describe the genesis of the extreme beliefs, its effect on the Khalistan Movement, and its status today (it exists, still, in expatriate Sikh communities in North America and the UK. Just go to youtube and search for "Khalistan"). --vi5in^[talk] 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It can be a long and twisty road, eh? I think your initial thought was very kind, but in the end, the article is about terrorism. sinneed (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

An article about Khalistani Terrorist activities would be interesting.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page: Well thats interesting, renaming it to Sikh Terrorism might be one outcome, Either way religious extremist behaviour encapsulates terrorist actions (but not always), sometimes the words 'terrorist' and 'extremist' are interchangeable although they were usually referred to as extremists, the term of Terrorists was used many times, here's an example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Clemens' "Dread Tomato Addiction" has an important lesson for you. He observed that 100% of the people who ate tomatoes more than 100 years ago were dead... therefore tomatoes were deadly and should be banned. Those darn deadly tomatoes. Another thought... every terrorist is alive... therefore life and terrorism are interchangeable. Almost all terrorists have 2 hands... therefore, having 2 hands and terrorism are interchangeable. *blink* Post hoc ergo propter hoc. sinneed (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Why has this discussion page had important contribs from admin deleted

I have posted a section Vandalism by Roadahead. It has been deleted 4 times ?

Anyone care to answer ?

I believe it's been archived, with the section header removed. Please check the archives. --vi5in^[talk] 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict... Vivin answered before I could finish investigating.
Whoever you are: discussion of editors here is a Bad Thing. There are more than enough challenges focusing on the content. If you feel a need to seek help, you certainly should, and need no support from anyone else to do so.
With that said: going back through the edit history shows the above unsigned edit was by user:satanoid. It also shows an edit creating the section (below the reflist) as Revision as of 17:13, 6 December 2008 user:satanoid and deleted Revision as of 20:57, 6 December 2008 by user:vivin. I would have encouraged vivin to say why the section was removed in the edit summary. sinneed (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My bad, it was in haste right after I archived the older comments and left only the ones pertinent to the current discussion. --vi5in^[talk] 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Vivin, have a look at this, its been happening a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikh_extremism&action=edit&undoafter=257268543&undo=257268636

I know what you mean!I'm getting fed up with the vandalism by Sikh history Satanoid (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a gossip page. Please focus on the content, not the editors. Your fascination with other editors is disruptive.sinneed (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you've gone a bit too far this time - if I changed the wordings to your discussion, would you class that as vandalism (as link above)

YES / NO ?

If you cant answer then dont lecture Sineed Satanoid (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the wp:vandalism discussion page, nor is it about me and my philosopy. Please focus on the content, not the editors. Your fascination with other editors is ... disturbing. sinneed (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

**STOP** removing the article flags.

Since most of us believe that at least some of this article is not neutral, please, please, PLEASE stop deleting the flags so stating. Restoring a statement, however sourced, that "Sikh Extremism is religious terrorism" *IS NOT* restoring it to a neutral state. Even if correct, it is *STILL* not neutral. There is no excuse for repeatedly removing these tags. It is tiresome to re-add them.

Please stop.

Now.

An idea: Instead of adding a statement like "x is y[2]", make it "According to z, x is y[2]".

The source you are citing gives examples of Sikh Extremists who are terrorist. I can give examples of humans who are terrorists. Thus, by your argument, I can replace your statement with "Humans are terrorists". This is called post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is a classic logic fallacy, and is not hard to avoid, with care. sinneed (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Final Warning"

I have been warned by another editor that my reversion of the rollback of all our work was vandalism. I posted this in response: What was my disruptive edit? I assure you that restoring the deleted article flags is not vandalism. While restoring flags is not exempt from 3rr, it is not vandalism. I must tell you that your lack of understanding of how Wikiipedia works is inhibiting the development of this article. Please follow the process: warn, and explain. Then warn, and explain, then warn, and explain. THEN last warn and explain. THEN escalate. You have been warned repeatedly not to continue to remove these flags. Your statement that "Sikh Extremism is religious terrorism" is not supported by your source. You are applying the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.sinneed (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that restoring removed flags is *NOT* an exemption from 3RR. I will continue to restore the flags, and the deleted content within the bounds of reason.

I fear that at least one of our editors does not understand Wikipedia very well, and this may be part of our problem. I would encourage patience and explanation.

The admin decision to stop the AfD was not in any way an endorsement of the state of the article. It was an observation that consensus was not being reached, and therefore the article would not be deleted. If anyone can add anything further, in a calm and reasonable voice, that might help our fellow editors understand that we need to move forward rather than simply reseting to the past version, that would be great.

sinneed (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this nonsense of warning Sineed (sic). --Sikh-history (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Understanding AfD

Your statement "all Admin expressed a preference to keep the article" turns out not to be quite correct:
"Keep" is an outcome.
"Delete" is an outcome.
"No consensus" is an outcome.
Since it is much easier to create pages in Wikipedia, one could as well argue that any article that had not been deleted had a consensus of "keep". No... it just isn't deleted. The logic fallacy here is "If x and y have the same results, then x and y are the same." A nuclear weapon and a spade can both be used to make a hole... but they are not the same. "Keep" and "No consensus" are not the same, though they do have the result that the article is not removed. I again would encourage you to focus on the content, rather than the editors. Every editor's voice is important. Arguing that my voice or yours have less validity because we haven't been through an RfA indicates a real lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is. sinneed (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

At the top

Let's keep the comments clean and civil from now on. Here are my suggestions. From now onwards, before making changes, vocalize them here and gain consensus. Add your suggestions under the banners below:--Flewis^(talk) 12:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Problems with revert message.

"Article hijacked repeatedly by extremists hence reverted to verson supported by admin"
First, articles cannot be hijacked. Editors you don't agree with are making edits. This is a Good Thing.

Second, "by extremists" - please assume good faith. I assure you I am not an extremist. I am just a random editor who spotted vandalism, reverted it, and became interested in the article. Please stop reverting my work. Add to it, correct it, and explain. I assume you are not an extremist (in the other direction) but simply someone who does not want to proceed the way Wikipedia as a whole does. I accept that I may be wrong about how best to proceed as well. In fact I am *CERTAIN* there are better ways... I just don't know them. Maybe we can find one that will work. I will try. :)

Third, "verson supported by admin" indicates multiple misunderstandings on your part about what Wikipedia is and how it works. These are addressed on your talk page, and above.

Please join the discussion. Please stop throwing our work away. Please don't assume bad faith. I don't with you. I just don't agree with your behaviour. It is your edits that matter. It is my edits that matter. It is history-person's edits that matter. That the 2 of you think ill of one another is unfortunate, but is of no consequence to the article or to Wikipedia in general.sinneed (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed 1-sentence paragraph - restored.

"Sikh separatists are receiving vital funding from the UK which could support renewed violence, police in India have told the BBC's File On 4 programme." at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7263211.stm
seems to clearly support:
"The Chief of the Punjab Police, NPS Aulakh alleged in 2008 that supporters are transferring money to the militant groups via informal funding channels in the UK Sikh community"

The statement has clear attribution, is covered by the BBC, and unless retracted, stands. If there are sources that argue against the statement, they certainly could be added, with the countervailing opinion. I am quite capable of misunderstanding, but the line looks ok to me... though I dislike 1SPs.sinneed (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)