Talk:Sikh religious extremism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

www.satp.org - RS?

If this is an OK reference, I would like to restore the 2 citations that Satanoid had made that were killed in the mass-revert, since I did not move quickly enough to restore the edits. Thoughts? sinneed (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sinneed, I think he got rid of masses of text, hence the mass revert.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Thankssinneed (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

* If no one thinks this is a poor source, I am adding it back in, say, Tuesday. sinneed (talk) 23:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sinneed, there could well be a Conflict of Interest. I'll follow up on this after reading more from this website. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

No, there cannot be a conflict of interest, unless they have started editing here. It does not matter if they are biased... it matters that they are "Reliable" in the Wikipedia sense.- sinneed (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have pulled SATP out of footnotes and put it into the EL section. I have also created a WP article for it. It is interesting, and may be useful, but I am dubious of these think-tanks. The Wilson Center is one of my favorites, but if I did not know in advance that they will present multiple sides of arguments as a matter of course, I would have no way of telling, and I would be uncomfortable quoting something that was just from their web page rather than one of the books or publications.- sinneed (talk) 23:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not delete the SATP source. I made it an EL.- sinneed (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yielding to Morbid Fairy's edit war. I think this is not a major point. Where this source is slanted, we can find other sources. If anyone decides to pursue it, I will support its removal, but I am not taking it out again.

- sinneed (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

New external link and another

• 'What Canadians think of Sikhs, Jews, Christians, Muslims . . .
• Sikh religion viewed unfavorably in B.C.

Interesting, but doesn't seem to meet wp:EL for this article.

Wikipedia is not a place to discuss how popular various groups are.

sinneed (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC) (modifications and expansion) - sinneed (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Source. "stealthy" content delete.

http://www.sikhsangat.org/news/publish/europe/Sikh_outrage_at_BBC_Radio_4_investigation1234.shtml

Is dead. An interested editor may wish to find another source.

Please do not mask removal of content as removing a dead link. If you wish to make the point that www.sikhsangat.org is not a wp:RS, feel free. Declaring it a blog is not appropriate.sinneed (talk) 02:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Today's addition.

"However, Sikh communities in Canada, the US and Britain continue to be sources of ideological and financial support for Sikh extremism." We do have a source for, and there is already content mentioning, the financial support, but this is pretty broad and needs sourcing as well. I won't kill it right away if it is re-added, but it does need a source, and I'll fact-flag it, and kill it if it is unsourced over time. - sinneed (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Added EL

This redirects (sometimes) to the main page.

• It is fundamentalism again

It seems to work for me most of the time. I originally cut it, but that was on a single test.- sinneed (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Links to Islamic fundamentalism ?

I don't see any connection to Islamic fundamentalism, Hindu fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism in that they are religious extremes, the link to religious terrorism is present which should suffice.

After researching the online military encyclopedia, under the activities section it states under State Publication 10321, added reference to assassination attempts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 23:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement added about WSO.

"According to the United States Deptartment of State Publication 10321, the WSO is defined, along with the ISYF as terrorist organisations."

Document says WSO pursues Sikh interests internationally, not that they are terrorists. Very different.

Also, please, use the State document, not the non wp:RS Milnet one. - sinneed (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism in Europe - new addition.

In May 2009, several people were attacked by Sikh fundamentalists in Vienna when two elderly Sikh preachers were attacked by higher caste fundamentalist Sikhs carrying knives and guns, the two preachers were named Sant Ramanand and Sant Nirajnan Das. Witnesses said the protests appeared to be a reaction to the fight at a temple in Vienna, which reportedly began when fundamentalist Sikhs attacked the preachers. Sant Ramanand died of his wounds in hospital early 25th May 2009.

The incident in Vienna had led to huge scale riots in Punjab State on India

While this certainly is involved with Sikh religion, this is not a general article about such... and wp:Wikipedia is not a current news archive. What does this have to do with the Sikh Extremists who are pursuing the creation of an independent state? - sinneed (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, "Sant" is a title, not name. Their names should be given in the WP article. Honorifics may be bestowed by the reader, or not, as the reader chooses.- sinneed (talk) 23:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It is faintly possible that an editor might find support to add this, after thorough editing, in the Sikhism article. But I doubt it. It is a current event, and might possibly merit its own article... but I doubt that too.- sinneed (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have posted the link to the Diff at talk:Sikhism, to see if anyone is interested in improving and including the incidents. The edit was restored without any new discussion, and I killed it. I will not kill it again immediately, but I will copy-edit it and hunt for a "relevance?" flag, as it has nothing to do with this article. Some other editor can kill it. Or, if no relevance is shown, I'll kill it another day.- sinneed (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another possible home: Religious violence.

The edit has been restored yet again. I have copy-edited it, and corrected the section heading. It still does not belong here. - sinneed (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note: "Sikh extremism refers to separatist beliefs that involve the formation of a Sikh state, often referred to as Khalistan."

- sinneed (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Further, we must avoid wp:coatrack... this is not a place to dump all things negative done by or blamed on (or done to or blamed by) Sikhs. I will only wait until tomorrow to kill this. If no one relates it to "separatist beliefs that involve the formation of a Sikh state", it does not belong here.- sinneed (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because it states that in the first beginning paragraph, that does not mean it is true, and is subject to corrections, it should be looked at again so YOUR definition is wrong, 3 editors have tried to include the Vienna incidents, only to see you delete it.

The concept of Sikh Extremism is not different to Islamic Extremism, it is NOT purely political, if it was then we could copy the Khalistan article, Sikh Extremism is much broader than Khalistan Terrorism, it DOES include death threats of journalists, politicians, clerics, playwrights, and civilians of other castes and religions as was documented from the 70's to the 90's.

"Just because it states that in the first beginning paragraph, that does not mean it is true" - actually, it does. If you gain wp:consensus, it can indeed be changed. I think you won't find support for turning this into a wp:coatrack to hold all events you decide are "extremist". Please explain how these events relate to "Sikh extremism refers to separatist beliefs that involve the formation of a Sikh state, often referred to as Khalistan." I understand that you want to change the subject of the article. This has been tried before, unsuccessfully.- sinneed (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"if it was then we could copy the Khalistan article" - more exactly, we might create a section in the Khalistan article, and move content from here into there. The religious violence aspects of this article might be merged into there.- sinneed (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved here from article

The following is misleading information. Firstly, the preachers were not "Sikh". They have opened a cult based system named - Ravidasia About 6 men went to the temple to protest and an argument ensued after the 6 men objected to the babas/priests distorting the Sikh religious scripture and passing divisive remarks. What exactly followed will be known with the passage of time. Along with one of the priest, 3 of those protesting Sikhs whom media is calling "attackers" have also died. What is this "higher caste" nonsense in the text? When will the shoddy blogger quality text stop to make into Wikipedia? ...and its even more disheartening when the newspapers have hired these folks who care less about the responsibilities of journalism. Again, the "riot" word used is unwarranted - there was no fighting in Punjab between groups, only the Ravidasia people went on rampage in towns and cities (Jalandhar, Hoshiarpur, Phagwara etc.) where there are soft targets and property to damage. Riots involve 2 opposing parties hitting each other. In this case, the victim was the public and private property.

Above post was unsigned. According to the edit log, it was by: Roadahead ★ This note added by and at: - sinneed (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

After reading your above text, you describe exactly what happened in great detail, yet very strangely you clearly ADMIT in the same sentence: What exactly followed will be known with the passage of time yet also you go on to criticize the likes of the New York Times and the BBC and You have not answered my question, you say it is misleading information, but can you say why all the journalists are wrong and you are somehow right ? Were you there when the incident occured ? You describe Ravidasia as a cult. Did you check the definition on Wikipedia?

Above post was unsigned. According to the edit log, it was by and at: Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC) These 2 notes were made by and at: - sinneed (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed text follows:

In May 2009, two Sikh preachers and several others were reportedly attacked in their Vienna temple by higher caste fundamentalist Sikhs carrying knives and guns, leading to at least one death, and sparking riots in Punjab.

What exactly followed will be known with the passage of time What exactly do you mean by that ? ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morbid Fairy (talk • contribs) 14:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the editor means that wp:wikipedia is not a news service. It is an encyclopedia. It is early days yet, and the events are not yet well documented and their meaning is not yet clear. Also, various objections to the inclusion are here on the talk page. Please help reach consensus, explaining why you believe this is related to the subject of the article. If you want to argue that the subject should be changed, please pursue that separately. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~. - sinneed (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can suspect whatever you want Sineed, I didn't ask you the question, and I'd appreciate an answer straight from the horses mouth so to speak if that's ok with you ?? It doesn't matter how many reasons (about this murder incident) are given to you as to why this should be included, Binary TSO gave you a very good reason but so what ? Because you will delete it and repeat the same questions, as for Wikipedia not being a news service, it could be stated that..."It was reported in the New York Times, The BBC, The Times, The Guardian and the Washington Post that in Vienna......?? My hunch is that you'd disagree to that to because it exposes a lot of things a lot of people would rather brush under the carpet Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think by passage of time he means this --Sikh-history (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• I one has an objection to an edit, one should explain. If one has a suggestion, one should make it.
• There is now a clear wp:RS that links this current event to the subject. I will ask that everyone avoid killing any wp:RS unless it does not support the text to which it is attached. Even then, I would encourage that it be done as Roadahead did, and copy it here.
• I have shortened the text to the core facts. Please avoid wp:OR and seek a wp:NPoV.- sinneed (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Most of this content is the bulk of an article for Rama Nand.- sinneed (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I will add the version of the Vienna text that I propose here, for discussion and consensus

I will also:

• restore the great deal of work I had done that has been removed without explanation beyond "extremist POV"
• restore the deleted article flags
• reinstate the edits made by other editors, including restoring the long form of the Vienna events and linked Punjab events
• flag the section with whatever tag says something like "too much detail" and "OR"

This will allow the article to Extremism in Europe section to be in the state the other editor in this dispute seems to feel strongly about.

- sinneed (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead, I have added both the Extremism in Europe section, and a new section for the KZF. It seems reasonable to list each of these organizations.- sinneed (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be an "undue" flag for a section alone, I have used the article flag.- sinneed (talk) 03:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved Sikh extremism in Europe

I have moved the enormously bloated and mis-named "Sikh extremism in Europe" section into the 2000's activity subsection, and renamed it. I may try to puzzle out a name for an article and move this huge bloat into it, with a 2 line summary here. While this was a tragedy for these individuals and their loved ones, it is massively overblown for this article.- sinneed (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Propose to remove refimprove flag from "History of Sikh separatism"

With the text of the citations available, and the cuts I made, I think this is adequately sourced now... though it probably needs expansion... and that might will bring the flag right back. Leaving it in for discussion. :) Any objections? - sinneed (talk) 04:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections? Last call.- sinneed (talk) 17:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. - sinneed (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, an editor immediately objected... but still has not joined the discussion. Ah well.- sinneed (talk) 00:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

More wp:EL integrated into the article.

Added a section in the Extremist acts section about the play protest and violence.

Added a section in the origins of separatism about the Sikh homeland in Punjab from 1799 to 1849.

- sinneed (talk) 05:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed lead-in change.

Now: "Sikh extremism refers to separatist beliefs that involve the formation of a Sikh state, often referred to as Khalistan."

Proposed: "Sikh extremism refers to violence, terrorism, or support activity for those, in the Khalistan movement: efforts to form a Sikh state, often referred to as Khalistan.

This still limps. Ideas please.

- sinneed (talk) 19:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Its a small improvement/correction but I'm glad you woke up Morbid Fairy (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"woke up" - wp:incivil - stop now.- sinneed (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Well, an editor has decided to go in an entirely new direction, without any discussion. This narrow definition would leave a lot of content out, including that just added by the editor. This seems wrong.- sinneed (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have placed a new version. The old one was so narrow that it would exclude much content that is already here, and that the editor has fought to keep in and expand.- sinneed (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

wp:OR or just a missing source?

"The Austrian Times stated that the Austrian Police discovered[citation needed] that the Khalistan Zindabad Force were behind the attacks had also"

The source does not say the Police discovered this... it says there were 2 emails claiming responsibility. I won't leave this in without a source.- sinneed (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Austrian Times - seems to fail wp:RS

This seems to match the web site, www.austriantimes.at.

This will probably need to be an wp:EL, rather than an wp:RS, as it is a self-published page, in Canterbury, UK, no less. - sinneed (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone argues that this is a wp:RS, I am killing it.- sinneed (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor has stated "The Austrian Times is also a newspaper not just a website". Does ANYONE have any wp:notability for such? The web site makes no reference to it, which would be astonishingly bizarre, if there were a paper. Papers make money.- sinneed (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

not here either] There is just no notability for "The Austrian Times".- sinneed (talk) 02:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections at all? Cutting this content today or tomorrow unless some notability, or another source, is found for Austriantimes.at.- sinneed (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

An editor who cannot or will not join the discussion has added an edit summary stating that "The Austrian Times" is in fact a newspaper... and that the fact that it is online is not an issue, citing a list of online newspapers. This editor then proceeded to remove "The Tribune" as a source.- sinneed (talk) 02:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yielding to Morbid Fairy's edit war. I am going to continue to use this source, since it is going to stay in anyway. If anyone decides to pursue it, I will support its removal, but I am not taking it out again. :) - sinneed (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Idly, I note that one can subscribe to The Tribune, India, English edition, at Amazon.com, and receive one's paper, rather slowly, for a rather stunningly expensive 305USD per year. This is the difference between the "online newspapers" and the "online version of a print publication, such as a newspaper". The version that was printed onto the paper can't change, and is rather painfully easy to enforce laws upon the publisher... presses are big, one cannot simply upload to a new hosting service and change one's IP. Extremists and unpleasant governments have delighted in SMASHING offending presses since they were new.- sinneed (talk) 04:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Cut to talk for possible inclusion.

"However, the programme was criticised as lacking balance."This link died, and was probably not a wp:RS anyway. This can certainly be re-added, but it needs sourcing.- sinneed (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikh History - damaging edit.

This series of edits broke a link and doesn't seem to make sense. I have flagged a couple of problem areas. I and one of the bots have, I think, repaired the source, but please revisit this edit. It can't stay like this long.- sinneed (talk) 11:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut to talk for possible inclusion.

"Sikh extremist groups were vociferously condemned by moderate Sikhs all over the world. "

I can't spot this in the source. - sinneed (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikh State

An editor has deleted and repeatedly fact-flagged the existence of a Sikh state in 1799. This is from "Other people's wars: A Review of Overseas Terrorism in Canada". The Mackenzie Institute. Retrieved 2009-05-30. For a brief period, between 1799 and 1849, Sikhs were able to fend off aggressors and maintain a state of their own.

Oddly, this is one of the sources the objecting editor is repeatedly duplicating. I have removed the fact flag after adding the quote, but in the interest of not seeming overstubborn, I won't remove it again. Other than the editor's personal knowledge ("there was no Sikh state in 1799"), I do not know the objection.- sinneed (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sineed, there was no state in the theocratic sense in 1799, the demands actually manifested in the late 70's by Jagjeet Singh Chauhan also the information on the KZF has been far to watered down in saying that they are a banned org by the rest of the world is too vague but I can understand the embarrassment it may cause Morbid Fairy (talk) 23:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If you object to the content of the book, please take it up with the publisher. If you can find a source that says that one is wrong, pleas add it. Please do not introduce wp:OR, your agreement (or mine for that matter) with the book does not matter.

"I can understand the embarrassment it may cause" - Please remove your focus from your perception of other editors, and focus on the content. Please see wp:Talk. This section is not about the KZF. - sinneed (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The source mentions an empire led by Maharajah Ranjit Singh, not a Sikh State, and certainly no theocratic state called Khalistan. The demand for the sikh state within the subject of sikh extremism occurred with Jagjit Singh Chauhan in the late 70's Morbid Fairy (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The source gives the dates for the Sikh state.This is what the edit shows. It does not claim to mention "Khalistan". It does not claim the state is "theocratic".- sinneed (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

A...source? Maybe? Or Not.

Punjab paper 1 - Is this a wp:RS 2 - Does it say useful things about the KZF denial? 3 - Any interest? - sinneed (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

New addition - copied here for possible inclusion - copyvio, and incorrectly sourced

In Oct 1985, an assassination attempt was uncovered on the Indian PM, Rajiv Gandhi on his stay in the UK, two other moderate Sikhs were murdered, Tarsem Singh Toor in Jan 1986 and Darshan Das was shot in November 1987, in all those cases, those responsible were tried and convicted under British Law.

This is very interesting, but this is not an article for listing all crimes in history involving Sikhs. No relevance. Please relate it to the subject (see the lead-in, please). Killing this soon if relevance isn't shown.- sinneed (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it not relevant? No one is suggesting the above, (listing all crimes in history involving Sikhs) you cannot kill whole sections (repeatedly) just because you feel it is not related ? A book or newspaper which are usally wp:NPOV can cover issues of sikh extremism, indeed any book on the sikh diaspora may cover the subject matter, if you continue to delete articles or water down articles, I will restore the article to an earlier version and report to admins Morbid Fairy (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? Unless this is an article for listing all crimes in history involving Sikhs, I don't see how it fits in. I will drop this tomorrow if no relevance other than the fact that it involved Sikhs is shown.- sinneed (talk)

This has been restored, and I have removed it again. There still is not even a CLAIM that this involves Sikh extremism. I can, in fact, remove this repeatedly, and will continue to do so, until either there is some tie-in to this article, on Sikh extremism (which you, by the way, keep attempting to restrict to include only terrorism, which makes no sense whatever).- sinneed (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

copyvio page 116 - This is indeed a list of crimes involving Sikhs, the only relation given by the source, with no relation to Sikh extremism...
which you copied verbatim or weakly paraphrased.
In addition, the text you are copying was in itself a quote of ANOTHER source.
Please. Please. Please. wp:copyright & wp:quote - you must comply.- sinneed (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 June is neutrality disputed flag still needed?

I politely ask that additions be made below my post, rather than in the middle, as it makes it unreadable for me, and cuts my work off from my signature. Please see wp:talk for further guidance.

I will place queries on the 2 editors whose contributions have largely been cut in our work of the past many days, asking for their input.

While there is still content that I think should not be here, I don't think it strongly affects the balance issue.

I see some of the lead-in as needless, but I think I have cut the judgementalism out of it. The lead-in should rest on the body, and much of it instead stands alone, but that does not seem to me a balance issue. I think the definition of Sikh extremism may still be a bit too narrow, as I see it driven by factionalism as well as separatism, but I have seen no support for my opinion, and won't pursue it alone.

The "Growth" section is small, and composed mostly of sideline issues as I see it, but I don't have enough interest to document the buildup of violence on multiple sides... and fear I would be fought every sentence of the way. I don't see this as a neutrality issue, though it does seem to make the violence explode fully formed with no build-up in time. In fact, due to more sources being available in more recent times (no Internet in 1991), it seems that violence is GROWING... and this may be a neutrality point.

I see the terror organizations section as candidate for intense bloat, and will be moving events out of it and into the chronology. These organizations each have their own articles, and interested editors may choose to update the or not. But I don't see that affecting neutrality.

The multiple-times-restored "Extremism in Europe" section I see as an interesting example of why Wikipedia is not a newspaper. From being "high caste" Sikhs, to being terrorists, to being a rival Austrian faction, to being terrorists, to who-knows-what, with fragmented sourcing and a staggering amount of work, I don't see that it adds anything to the article except that humans have always been willing to do things in the name of their peaceful religions that they would do in the name of nothing else. I don't see it being a neutrality issue, but just a mess.

The "Mainstream response" section is small, and I think it would be better to show the response of the community to the individual acts of violence... but there again, those are consistently met with "stealth deletion", and I can't bring myself to care that much. This may well be a good reason to leave the flag in: Often, only the terrorists points of view are being given, rather than the views of their critics. Oddly, an editor championing the point of view of the terrorists claims that attempts to condemn them are "extremist PoV."

What I see as a pointless insistance on keeping sources in both the "reference" and "external links" sections is also not a neutrality issue, and merely adds bloat, rather than causing any real problem.

top of section I request responses below this line, and will risk wp:talk to cut additions made into the middle of my post out and down. Thank you in advance.- sinneed (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I think your point Sikh extremism may still be a bit too narrow, as I see it driven by factionalism as well as separatism, but I have seen no support for my opinion, and won't pursue it alone is valid. I think this article should be either renamed Sikh Factionalism, or Sikh Separatism. As it reads, it attempts to links events that do not correlate with extremism to separatism. I think the neutrality flag could be removed if it was retitled and any obscure refrences removed. --Sikh-history (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sikh separatism began in colonial times... fact-flag

"Sikh separatism began in colonial times," is fact-flagged, but there is no explanation of why. It is cited to an easily-checked reference. Is the objection to the reference? What is needed here? I will remove the fact flag in a couple of days unless it is explained here.- sinneed (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying there was a 'state' from very limited sources, is not good enough, there is no name provided either - Punjab was not a country, it may have been a state within a country called India, as it is to this day, there was NO historical country run by Sikhs, (official or otherwise) unless you include the current PM of India perhaps (but that doesnt make it a 'Sikh' state in any theocratic sense either Morbid Fairy (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• "limited sources" - wp:RS... no wp:BLP... doesn't require multiple sources. Yes, this is good enough. Punjab is a region.
• "there was NO historical country run by Sikhs, (official or otherwise)" - I am sure you can find a wp:RS that says so, if you are interested and that is correct, and add it.
• "'Sikh' state in any theocratic sense either" - Very possibly true, but specious. A state need not have any particular form of government to be a state.
• Added a quote as a comment to satisfy the dubious and citation needed flags. "In colonial times, demands for a separate state were made upon the British." If the objection is that this is not a wp:RS please make the case.

- sinneed (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the editor cannot or will not explain the problem with the again-dubious-flagged "Sikh State", I don't know how to help. The edit summary says "Name of State again not given".- sinneed (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the "dubious" flag. I cannot aggree that its use is incorrect. I just don't understand what, other than not mentioning the state, would make the content acceptable to the flagging editor. The entire Cambridge history is available online, an interested editor can study it at leisure.- sinneed (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I confess to mild amusement that the flag added is "dubious-discuss"... but the editor did not "discuss".- sinneed (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Morbid Fairy, you have no idea (or rather you have), of what you are talking about. I can cite hundreds of books on the Sikh State of Punjab, Darbar e Khalsa, The Lahore Darbar or Sarkar e Khalsa from contemporaries to modern histories. Maharaja Ranjit Singh was Ruler of the Sovereign State of Punjab , and well as Ruler of Annexed territories of Kashmir, Ladakh and Peshawar. His ruling court was known as Darbar-e-Khalsa, or Seat of the Khalsa's (Sikhs). This was a Sovereign Sikh state in name and form. The first Sikh State was formed by Bandha Bahadhur some 150 years earlier. A good measure of whether a state is a Sovereign State or not is the minting of coins. You are deliberatly creating trying to create a dispute where there is none.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope.

"The Times reported that Extremists from the Sikh Federation hijacked a play called "Behzti" (Dishonour) where violence erupted (Dishonour),"
How do you hijack a play?
And that isn't in the article source.
And The Times didn't make the claim about extremists "hijacking" the protest, the protest organizer did.
And that part is in the WP article.

If you choose to quote "hijacking", be sure to follow wp:quote.

Please. You are better than this behaviour makes you seem. I have seen you do good work. Please do more. - sinneed (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OR flag added today.

I would ask that the individual (or say, the 1st 4) incidents of wp:OR be tagged. I have spent a PAINFUL amount of time looking at this and cut everything I felt could be called OR that I could not source. If nothing is flagged in the next couple of days, I will drop the OR flag.- sinneed (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"Article reads like original research with 2+2 = 5 conclusions." - I don't see that, except where the conclusions were drawn by the sources. Please see wp:BALANCE, wp:RS. If a conclusion drawn by a reliable source is disputed, one needs to find another reliable source that draws a different conclusion. This is not wp:OR, it is life. Different individuals will draw different conclusions. This is a Good Thing.- sinneed (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Flagging editor has not responded. Dropped the flag. - sinneed (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sharp cut of list

I cannot support this edit. I restored the "against civilians" and reworded so that would work. I will restore it again if it is removed. Sikh extremism would not, for example, cover a formal war, nor self-defense, as I see it.

I am not convinced removing the detailed list is a good idea. Many people have never seen violence, and literally do not know what it means. I think the detailed list is valuable, since this is the point of the article... to convey to people what Sikh extremism is, and means. I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but I oppose its removal, and support its restoration.- sinneed (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Created Rama Nand article. Moved bulk of his death attack content there.

I moved the huge bulk of coverage of his death and its aftermath to his article, leaving all sources here, with a much shortened description of the event and aftermath as the newest 2000's item. Whether this was due to the Khalistan effort or simple inter-sect violence, it seems to me to belong here. Not a *TERRIBLY* strong feeling, see section about the point of the article, if interested.- sinneed (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

"Which?" flag

I would be happy to address any concern, but... that flag doesn't tell me what the concern is? "Which sources?" - I would guess essentially all of them... if that is the question, which would be a question for the publisher. If the question is for the original source, then please, ask the publisher. Putting the question in Wikipedia won't be productive. I don't see any need to kill the flag, but... it isn't stimulating me to address any issue, as it is now.- sinneed (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many icoherent deletions and edits by Sinneed

Sinneed, you have edited over and over, in fact it seems totally unrecognizable every time one checks this information its become far to incoherent. You have made edits to facts related to news articles and globalsecurity.org only to delete those whole sections afterwards.

I ought to remind you that Sikh Extremism is not exclusively motivated by violent politics (read the intro), it is just that; i. Sikh Extremism. Extremist acts of violence within a Sikh setting, either against other sikhs or non-Sikhs such as the violence over the issue of whether Temples should allow tables and chairs, death threats against journalists, assassinations of prominent clerics who do not share a violent agenda over caste, politics, money, protocol - ad infinitum. Its seems obvious you are trying to:

a)Limiting and altering of information i)Removing news articles when I replaced the words, 'safety' to 'security', because of copyright. I will add the Behzti article back.

b)Your reason for edit quote"Khalistan Commando Force: KCF article doesn't seem to have sources that support the "thousands of deaths", possibly "many". Rewording and fact-flagging"

http://www.state.gov/p/inl/rls/nrcrpt/2008/vol2/html/101353.htm

The KCF was responsible for thousands of deaths. See link above. I can only see your alteration does not satisfy wp:NPOV

The issue of Rama Nand, is very much connected to Sikh extremism, it involved Sikhs, and it involved Extreme acts of violence. Yet you deleted it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/sathnam_sanghera/article6407907.ece

The article is far to watered down and becoming irrelevant. I will remind you that Wikipedia:Ignore all rules will be applied if yo don't revert it because if you don't , I will.

Can you provide further evidence where there was a Sikh Country, ie where, when and how? And put that in the Khalistan article. Now just because some may demand a Khalistan, that does not mean there was an absolute theocratic Sikh state when in actual fact the it actually consisted of a collection of loose secular autonomous Misls and similar princely states throughout the Indian subcontinent

Please do the necessary Morbid Fairy (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• "The issue of Rama Nand, ... Yet you deleted it." - false. I created his article. The attack that resulted in his murder is here, as well as a link to his article, and every source we have (I dropped none of them).
• "I will add the Behzti article back." - It hasn't been removed. It has its own article. An interested editor might choose to improve it. Or not.
• KCF - has its own article. An interested editor might improve it. Or not. Or add a source here. I assure you that dropping an unsourced statement meets wp:NPOV.
• "Can you provide further evidence where there was a Sikh Country, ie where, when and how?" - Already did. An interested editor might choose to read the sources. There are 2, both seem to meet wp:RS.
• "Removing news articles" - I did once remove an article, in error. It was a typo, and I have not repeated it.
• "if yo don't revert it because if you don't , I will." - and I will possibly warn you, and possibly revert it again, depending on what you do. Not a problem. Please join the various discussions, above.

- sinneed (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the new State source about the KCF. I have integrated it here and *PARTIALLY* at the KCF article.

On the Sikh Empire, no, I am not currently interested in pursuing that article. Since you are interested, you might make the edits though. Then, you would learn the answers to your questions, and improve Wikipedia at the same time.

This set of notes added by SH might help. Or possibly not. - sinneed (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many incoherent edits and deletions by Morbid Fairy/Satanoid

Morbid Fairy, it is quite evident you are trying to Game the System. I suggest you read this. Also I suggest you get this book and look at Page 102 for a Map of the Empire under the Mighty Maharaja Ranjit Singh. Also take a trip to the Victoria and Albert Museum in Kensington, they have the originals there. Also take a look at this. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

::I think adding legitimate links from International media press reports such as the New York Times, Reuters, The BBC, Rediff, on Sikh Terrorism is hardly gaming the system irrespective of how desperate or protective you may feel (That the events do not matter) after the recent terrorist violence in Austria or elsewhere for that matter.

As you can see, I do not wish to hide or remove these facts or divert sections to other articles as has been done by Sinneed in an effort to water down the article, (for reasons he knows to himself) but if that is your agenda along with Sinneed, I am aware that you were both demanding WP:AFD when the article was created, this is still reflected in your edits/deletions/removing sections. Morbid Fairy (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Not protective, just wary of people who have been exposed for WPOuting and a million and one warnings. Regards

Khalistan movement

I wonder if most of the content of this article actually belongs in the Khalistan movement article.

I am going to point the Sikh terrorism article at Khalistan movement, rather than here, and begin integrating the terrorism content from here into there. This would allow this article to focus on Sikh extremism as it relates to Sikh factionalism, which seems to me to be lost in the terrorism content presently.

- sinneed (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

It does. See my note below. We are repeating stuff over and over again from other articles.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of it did not exist in other articles... :)- sinneed (talk)

Remove All Militant/Terrorist Outfits

We don't need a list of militant outfits here, because they are already listed here. We are just duplicating the same stuff over and over again.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just created a section for this, immediately above... and this is more than a listing.- sinneed (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just had time to look through other articles, a lot has been repeated here. Lets remove the junk and just add links. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I just really don't see any junk left...I am dubious. There is some information that, I think, needs to move into the Khalistan article. But it isn't urgent. Duplication is not in and of itself bad...if it makes the information more accessible and or useful. In this case, my argument for moving it to Khalistan movement is twofold:

• It isn't in the Khalistan movement article, and is too scattered in the individual articles
• It overwhelms the non-separatist extremism here

I would also note that we don't have a militant outfit list here... we have a terrorist organization list... very different.

- sinneed (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Same thing, they are all Khalistani organisations.--Sikh-history (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't see that at all. I have been advised firmly that "militant" may apply to people who simply protest loudly, say by burning figures in effigy and shouting slogans... a "militant protester." As I understand it, even in insurgency, those who take up arms may simply be rebels, and not terrorists. That is, that generally terrorism must be directed at civilians. If one convinces the military that if they leave their bases they will die badly, but the public is in danger only if they are hit in "collateral damage" or "friendly fire", then it will probably be difficult to make a classification as "terrorists" stick in the minds of the public at large.

• I hope to see other interested editors comment on this idea before starting the work.

- sinneed (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your logic. Let's move it under that, and add a link from this article.--Sikh-history (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Invited opinion

I was invited by User:Morbid Fairy to get involved here. The invitation also received a comment from User:Sikh-history. I don't want to get drawn into editing the article and therefore shall confine myself to some comments.

• Why does the lead paragraph only mention nationalism? The Vienna killings suggerst that there is also fundamentalist violence and violence between different traditions within Sikhism. Surely this article should cover both? And some mention of Sikhism as an ethnoreligious group could be useful.

• Perhaps the Kalistan-related extremism could then, as suggested above, be summarised here but detailed in Kalistan-related articles in line with WP:Summary style.

• Havign separate sections for nationalistic and other violence woudl help.

• The lead and the article are not fully in harmony over whether violence has declined. The lead says it has but the chronological listing of events in the article gives the impression that violence goes on.

• The lead could probably do with a second paragraph anyway.

• I wonder whether the listing of terrorist groups conforms to policy on the use of the term. (I've not been able to find th policy right now and am about to go out.) Neither Irgun nor Hizbollah are named as terrorist without qualification. Instead it is said that certain countries or people have called those groups terrorist. Although there is mention of who describes some groups listed here as terrorist, this is not the case for all. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent points.

• I especially am concerned with the point about "Terrorist Organizations". Generally, even the governmental sites shy away from directly calling them "terrorist organizations," and instead identify them as organizations covered by law or rule designed to reduce terrorism. I believe that I will make that change at once... from Terrorist to Militant.
• The larger-scale changes I will leave a while, to give interested occasional editors a chance to comment. I encourage that course, as well.- sinneed (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The comments are logical and make sense. Your input would be most welcome.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments here and on my talk page. The Israel-Palestine set of articles provide more than enough ethno-religious-political disputation for my Wiki time, and somehow I also seem have got Cyprus and some Lebanon-Syrian articles on my watch list and have to do reverts there. (That spread is probably all three of those disputes have at times broken oiut at Hummus). So when User:Sikh-history says that I am knowledgeable, my knowledge is of some of the policies that crop up in these arguments and also how one-eyed soem editors can be and how also certain groups which do not have the itnerests of Wikipedia at heart and which run attack pages on editors can seek to manipulate content.

All I was aware of the subject matter of this article is how Indira Gandhi was shot by Sikh guards following the Indian Army driving armed militants out of a temple and major holy site and that Sikh terrorism was a sufficient issue in the 1980s for the fictional hijack in The Satanic Verses (novel) to be by Sikh nationalists who choose to shoot a secularised Sikh as their first victim, suggesting that fundamentalism has been an issue in itself for some time.

For these reasons, I'm not going to edit the page itself but just try to say what strikes me about it as an article. As for the whole issue of whether certain edits are POV, I've got the luxury of not being an admin and therefore not having to rule. I've got the impression that some of the issues arose from the scope of the article not being agreed and therefore certain material was seen as possibly irrelevant. I think that widening the scope to clearly include fundamentalist violence may resolve some of the arguments about what shoudl be included. As far as I am concerned, any violence committed in the name of a Sikh identity, whether nationalist or religious, should be covered here. The most obvious example to me on what to exclude is that I have a friend who was working on a PhD on domestic violence in the Sikh community in Britain. This doesn't strike me as something associated with an extreme form of Sikhism itself, just with extrreme individuals. If an extremist sect claimed a right to chastise women, this would be different, but my understanding is that Sikh doctrine is actually better than that of the Abrahamic religions in this. A thematic analysis of extremism will be better than a purely chronological or geographical one. The latter two approaches can result in a hodgepodge of incidents being mentioned with the reader being unabel to see rhyme or reason for their inclusion. What I recommend does have the danger that it might lead to WP:Original Research. An academic journal or feature article in a more serious newspaper or magazine might provide such a framework to uuse.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Humor: One of our editors who simply cannot or will not join the discussion, has claimed to agree with the comments... then immediately edited against them... insisting that the article is only about terrorism... insisting on calling the militant organizations "Sikh Terrorist Organizations".- sinneed (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter just a couple of points:

• Sikh terrorism was a sufficient issue in the 1980s for the fictional hijack in The Satanic Verses (novel) to be by Sikh nationalists who choose to shoot a secularised Sikh as their first victim. I don't this this has anything to do with Sikhs or Sikhism but more to do with Islam. Sikhs, from my knowledge had nothing to do with this.
• In terms of domestic violence, a man who beats his wife is frowned upon in the Sikh Religion and is treated like an outcaste or a coward. Aman who beats a woman is seen as someone who is effeminate and not able to face men, hence why he beats women. Not that it does not happen, but this is linked more to a cultural thing, i.e. linked to Punjabi culture. This was a mistake Gurpreet Bhatti made in her play Behzti, mixing Punjabi culture with the Sikh faith. The two are quite distinct and seperate as is demonstrated by the 3HO white Sikh community in the USA. Note also, that up until recently, the head of the Sikh Church was a [woman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagir_Kaur].--Sikh-history (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I said above, the fictional terrorists who hijack a plane in Part 1, Chapter 4 of The Satanic Verses are Sikhs. (In looking at the text, I can't actually see the hijackers described as Sikhs, but they are turbaned, called Dara Singh, Buta Singh, Man Singh and Tavleen, who incidentally is from Canada, release all the observant Sikh hostages and choose their first victim with the words "You first Apostate traitor bastard." with the author stating "Jalandri had become the first target because of his decision to give up the turban and cut his hair, which made him a traitor to his faith a shorn Sidarji. Cut-Sird. A seven-letter condemnation. No appeal.")
• As for domestic violence, I said it was inappropriate to include in the article. My friend was definitely researching it as Sikh, not Punjabi. I do however seem to recall her saying that Bhatti showed ill-judgment setting the rape in a temple.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I didn't now that was in Satanic verses. Maybe the Sikhs will start burning that? :). As for Behzti, Bhatti has made a classic mistake of thinking because she is Sikh, that is the same as being Punjabi. Punjabi culture is associated with bride burning, wife beating, alcoholism etc. Sikhism was intended to remedy such ill's in Punajbi society. Unfortunately we have a situation where even today the two are confused together by the younger generation. I think your friend maybe making that mistake. She would do well to discard her religion when researching and research the macho Punjabii culture which leads to things such as domestic violence.--Sikh-history (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh Rushdie's novels tend to be quite free ranging. The character representing the man who was to issue the fatwa against Rushdie turns into a man-eating ogre in the book; the leader of the first country to ban Satanic Verses is twice mentioned it it: first he is dismissed as "Her son, the airline pilot" early on and later, when discussing the Bhopal disaster, a character compares Union Carbide with the forty thieves. "We had no Ali-Baba, misfortunately... Who did we have? Mr Rajiv G." And various Tory spokemen in Britian at the time were explaining that they would defend Rushdie's right of free speech and provide police security despite the fact that their leader and prime minister of the time was referred to as "Mrs Torture" tthroughout.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

hahah "Mrs Torture". Priceless!--Sikh-history (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit of a shock - FYI only

US State Department terrorism report page I must be missing something... I don't see any listings there... plowing backward to see what is going on.- sinneed (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The last Sikh listing I find is in 1997. I don't see it in 1999. I wondered why the sources were so old.- sinneed (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A link to one or more specific pages might be useful. Expecting readers to guess where there is any material in a whole sluster of documents is inappropriate. The age of the last reference would support the argument that the issue has reduced as stated in the lead paragraph. Also [1] does list one of the Sikh groups mentioned in the article as terrorist. It appears in soem of the other documents listing terrorists.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. One of the problems I have with many edits is that they will cite an entire book, without even a page or even a CHAPTER identified. That one has both BKI and ISYF listed.

I am sorry to see that State stopped doing the old style report with some sort of categorization... but they may have (rightly I think) feared it encouraged profiling. It does make it harder to cite.

- sinneed (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I suddenly realized that your edit summary seems to include the inference that I was planning on putting this into the article. Sorry I wasn't clear about its purpose... I only shared it here on the Talk page... an FYI only.- sinneed (talk) 15:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Vienna Killings Revisted

Hi, I am puzzled a bit by the Vienna killings, supposedly carried out by High Castes supported by KZF. Is this, the same KZF that supported the killers of Indira Gandhi? If this IS the case then one should note that the Killers of Indira Gandhi were from the so called Dalit Caste (so called lower caste), and have been praised and honoured as martyrs by the KZF. So the motive does not make sense. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please remember wp:talk... this not not a place to discuss the event... only what is said about it in the article. There are various theories on the attackers' motivations and "identities" in the sources cited. The bulk of the detail is in the article about the murdered leader Rama Nand.

- sinneed (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This was meant to be comment about the conflicting references.--Sikh-history (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Yes, there are conflicting theories. I don't see the references conflicting too much, really... most of them mention more than one possibility, or are simply noting the next step in a long sequence.- sinneed (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Separatism and Factionalism

Hi Sineed, should we take out the information with regard to sepratism and put that under Khalistan in lieu of this?--Sikh-history (talk) 14:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we need input from everyone interested. How can we say, in the lead sentence, what this is? In the past it only covered separatism... but it needs to allow for factionalism... and ... what? "dis-respect-ism?" The violent protest of Behzti, and death threats against its author are clearly extremist Sikh behaviour. Most Sikhs would, I should think, condemn such...thus, extremist.

How do we include that, without including every violent crime commited by or against a Sikh person? I can't figure it out. I thus lean toward more than one article, but I fear we will simply wind up with more content forking, contention, and duplication.

I don't know.

- sinneed (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe all Sikhs are terrorists and they carry bombs in their turbans? :) --Sikh-history (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Profiling is a real concern. Humans are generalizing animals. If humans see many many pictures of men in turbans with guns, seeing a turban causes the animal-nature-section to look for (and/or fear) the gun... whether it is there or not. I think ... add something to the lead that specifically says something like:

Sikh extremism is behaviour condemned by mainstream Sikhs (source source source), including blah blah blah. Sikh extremists have had various motivations (source source source).

Sikh separatists are driven by a desire to create a homeland, often called Khalistan, as part of the Khalistan movement blah blah.

Extremist members of Factions within Sikhism have both peacefully (source source) and violently (source source) disagreed about acceptable Sikh practices blah blah.

Other Sikh extremists have been motivated by what they see as disrespect shown to the entire Sikh faith (Behzti-source maybe-source) blah blah.

Some events have been blamed on, or claimed by, Sikh extremists, for which motivation is not clear (source source) blah blah.

Each would need a bit in the body somewhere with more detail. - sinneed (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think some sort of lead like that is needed. Of the 25 million Sikhs, the extremists you can probably pin down to 150 people. People who believe in Khalistan probably 50,000. There is however, a strong martial streak in Sikhism, like the Samurai code, which needs to be separated from Sikh Extremism. Also there is a code that believes in personal freedom, much like the American constitution, for example, in America you have the right to bear arms for personal defence, Sikhs believe in that. Its all very complex and messy, but sometimes the "Martial" side spills over, the Vienna business being an example. My father joked, that they are like Cowboys in turbans. :) --Sikh-history (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Decrease - removed from Lead.

I can't support this edit (edit to add, but will not revert). Later versions of the document drop the mention of Sikh extremism entirely... If this article had a future, I would argue that that would be worth a lead-in mention. But I think it doesn't have one. This article seems to be mainly a wp:content fork of Khalistan movement.- sinneed (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Considering an RfC for a multi-merge.

I am considering an RfC to discuss possibly merging some of the Khalistan articles.

Today, this article and the Khalistan article seem to mostly be shadows (wp:content forks) of the edit-war-damaged Khalistan movement article.

I may propose merging the Khalistan content into Khalistan movement, and the Khalistan terrorism/violence here into Khalistan movement as well.

Khalistan could then redirect to Khalistan movement

I may propose creation of Sikh Factionalism, to make a home for the factional violence such as the 2009 Austria attack that resulted in the death of Rama Nand, etc. This may or may not have been the responsibility of the one of the terrorist groups... but even if it was it was factional violence.

I might propose the use of Sikh extremism as a disambiguation page pointing to the Khalistan movement, Sikh Factionalism (or whatever), and any other similar articles.

Thoughts? - sinneed (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

An excellent Idea, Please go ahead. --98.207.210.210 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. There needs to be one place for all these topics. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A very good thought. But! I believe that Khalistan and Khalistan movement articles should stay as separate articles as we have India and Indian independence movement etc. Rest of the related/discussed articles are simply wp:content forks of these two articles. A same militant can be called 'a freedom fighter' or 'terrorist' based on whom you ask. Similarly! it appears that someone felt word Khalistan Movement as too neutral and ended up creating its wp:content forks with more hatefull words Sikh Extremism and/or Sikh Terrorism etc. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Khalistan is presently a small copy of Khalistan movement. They are not separate. Militants may be demonstrators yelling... they may be neither "freedom fighters" nor "terrorists".- sinneed (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So are you doing this Sineed?-- Sikh-history (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. I started copying content into the individual militant organizations and worked a lot on those articles. No need to wait if you would like to go ahead. I have hesitated as I have little positive experience with RfCs.- sinneed (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No please. I have had similar experiences so I won't either :-). Cheers -- Sikh-history (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009(UTC)

Sinneed, I have yet to review the current (dated today) contents of the article after you left me a note on my talkpage. However, from the past experience of lenthy discussion on the issues related to the title of this article and content, I can say that merging it into "Khalistan Movement" is a better idea. Review and feedback on the current content is still something that I've on my TODO list. Cheers --Roadahead ★ 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes! Merging it into Khalistan movement is really a good idea.--209.183.55.44 (talk) 06:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)