Talk:Sikh religious extremism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Encyclopedia sources

Rereading, I erred. In fact, encyclopedias are used here as sources. Other "wiki"-type sources, however, are not. In any event, the source wasn't removed, only specific content, and a specific use of the reference. The history here should have some discussion of globalsecurity.org, and its use in the article. It might bear revisiting.- Sinneed 12:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Coatrack

This is an article about Sikh Extremism. A Sikh moderate being attacked by unidentified persons would seem incorrect. wp:NOTNEWS... not relevant to the article at hand.- Sinneed 15:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, Ujjal Dosanjh has had a history of being attacked by Sikh Extremists, of course there will be denials because they cannot and don't want to be identified as such, so the apologists of terrorists will try their best to edit or airbrush such news. Ujjal Dosanjh has spoken out against Sikh Terrorism and in return has been attacked just as other politicians and journalists have been if they have said anything against Sikh Terrorism. If you need to make it news worthy its already here read this:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Termo the feather (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 April 2010

Not Coatrack

Changed header, removing failure to wp:AGF.- Sinneed 18:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism on the Rise in Canada, Says Terrorism Expert

Epoch Times http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/34375/

and a good reference where it states he was beaten up in 1985 along with current death threats, here

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Ujjal+Dosanjh+receives+outpouring+support+following+threats/2944935/story.html.

Facebook photo page with AK-47 draws weapon prohibitions

http://www.canada.com/life/Facebook+photo+page+with+draws+weapon+prohibitions/2967627/story.html

All the above News items appeared in the 'News' hence they would seem pretty 'newsworthy'

Enjoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termo the feather (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 April 2010 Above heavily edited and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termo the feather (talk • contribs) 30 April 2010

...and Wikipedia is not a news provider. It is an encyclopedia.- Sinneed 22:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
We are not discussing if it a news provider, we are discussing why YOU don't think Sikh Extremism its newsworthy ? The various references is of reliable sources - Above heavily edited and —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termo the feather (talk • contribs) 30 April 2010
"we are discussing why YOU don't think Sikh Extremism its newsworthy" - no, only you have reached this opinion, and only you are discussing it. This is not about me. It is about Wikipedia content.- Sinneed 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Your wrong again, Ujjal Dosanjh has had a history of being attacked by Sikh Extremists, news citations have been given here by various editors, yet you have airbrushed them for various reasons. Incidentally, when one looks at this discussion from start to finish, you seem to object to much citation and news 'worthiness' Termo the feather (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ujjal Dosanjh seems adequately covered here, and has an article in WP.- Sinneed 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

assume good faith

Previously titles "assume good faith". Reheaded as that has nothing to do with the content of the article.- Sinneed 03:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

changed title back to original, this is why editors should assume good faith before doing reverts--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned because my recent edit on this article was undone in a series of 3 edits [1] [2] [3]. Sinneed's concern was that "Actually the article was about extremism spreading quickly in Canda[sic]" but thats not the case and I think my edit phrases it better.

  • both articles have the lead-in of

and they are both about how the commission was saying extremism ballooned quickly, which is how my edit phrased it. please respond--76.112.26.200 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC) my computer shut off and I forgot to sign back on--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Assume good faith. Please focus on the content, rather than other editors.
Please see wp:SYNTH. You say "because". The article says that is where the quote comes from. Very much not the same. The article remains, as summed up in the title, about Sikh extremism spreading quickly in Canada. While titles are not themselves useful as reference material, that does still remain the subject.- Sinneed 03:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Can you write that first part again in a full sentence? "You say "because". The article says that is where the quote comes from. Very much not the same. " I'm sorry I am not sure what you are referring to. sorry --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Instead, what if you say what you think is better, and prehaps I can answer.
You stated what the article was about, and that is wp:POV and not needed. Instead, it would be best to summarize what it says.
It might be worth saying that "immediately after *whatever historical event*... Sikh extremism spread much more rapidly than authorities expected, with *whatever threats, violence, etc.*" or some such. Drawing the conclusion of why for the reader isn't really needful... a slaughter of thousands would likely cause most any reader noting the immediately following events to tie them together. Why do it for them, introducing a PoV into the article, when simply presenting the facts will work?- Sinneed 04:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Immediately after Operation Blue Star, Canadian authorities were unprepared for how quickly the Vancouver area grew into a hotbed of activity, with extremists "threatening to kill thousand of Hindus by a number of means, including blowing up Air India flights"
What do you think of that? I also don't like this line"including fundraising to support militants, threats of kidnapping, death threats, beatings, and assassinations." because it seems like a laundry list of what extremists generally do--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
"hotbed" is a "hotbutton" wp:peacock term, and I see no reason to single out Vancouver. It seems clear the press is covering the spread of support for the terrorists through Canada. The primary coverage appears to be of the widespread support and fundraising, as I read it. Then the secondary coverage of activity in Canada was of kidnapping, death threats, beatings, killings. I could be missing it.
"because it seems like a laundry list of what extremists generally do" - I would actually flip that over: hijacking or blowing up airlines and such is more what the world thinks of as terrorism, but I don't see that as germane to content discussion.- Sinneed 14:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Immediately after Operation Blue Star, Canadian authorities were unprepared for how quickly extremism grew and how quickly it gained support.
"Then the secondary coverage of activity in Canada was of kidnapping, death threats, beatings, killings."- that is in neither stated or implied in either article. The closest to that is "who among other things, were threatening to kill thousand of Hindus by a number of means, including blowing up Air India flights." seems like original research by the original editor. I think this last disagreement is more about the nature of the articles. If you look at the date of the articles(same) and the content(same looks copied and pasted), they are both probably based off a wire news service reporting that inquiry into the air india bombing--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, that would be why it is tagged onto the end, without a trailing source. Thank you, Profitoftruth85. I think based on that, I like something like a combination of your last 2 ideas:

Immediately after Operation Blue Star, authorities were unprepared for how quickly extremism spread and gained support in Canada, with extremists "...threatening to kill thousand of Hindus by a number of means, including blowing up Air India flights".

or similar. If the article source of the quote has a period after the "Air India flights", then the period can be moved inside the quote. Thoughts?- Sinneed 19:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Great! I just added that here. Feel free to edit it if you spot an error. It's good to have a discussion on wikipedia that has a positive result.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

New large addition for possible inclusion

wp:UNDUE - has own article, already over-covered here.

Suspected Sikh extremists threatened politician [[Ujjal Dosanjh]] calling for his assassination through [[Facebook]] postings. The Facebook page — Ujjal Dosanjh is a Sikh Traitor — included several violent threats against the Dosanjh, an outspoken critic of Sikh extremism. Reacting to the incident, Dosanjh said the pro-Khalistan movement is all but dead in India, where Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims are learning to get along, and where a Sikh man is now Prime Minister. “But cells are active particularly in Canada and other countries with large Sikh populations,” he said. “It’s only in the diaspora where (the pro-Khalistan movement) exists,” Dosanjh said.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100425/world.htm#1|title=Ujjal Dosanjh gets death threats from Sikh radicals |publisher=[[The Tribune]]|date=2010-4-24|accessdate=2010-5-9}}</ref> - Sinneed 21:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Chunk 2:

As a result of these views, in February 1985 he was attacked in the parking lot of his law office by an assailant wielding a iron bar. Dosanjh, 37 at the time, suffered a broken hand and received 80 stitches in his head.<ref name=Fotheringham/><ref name="threat">Hamilton, Dwight. "Terror Threat: International and Homegrown terrorists and their threat to Canada", 2007</ref><ref>http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20100425/world.htm#1</ref>


wp:POV, wp:OR, wp:UNDUE - Sinneed 21:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


So what if he has his own article? Incidents of Sikh extremism and violence (which happen to be associated with him) merit their inclusion here.

WP: UNDUE states:

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

WP:UNDUE is about not giving too much coverage to "minority views". In this context, there is no view that is being discussed!!! These are incidents not views or opinions! (Or is it that you feel these incidents (related to UD's life) are minor then please state why??)

As for being OR and POV-- Lol!! Please do you even know what the policy means! How can you call information from reputed news agency from OR/POV?? I have not come up with it!! The sources state them! These incidents actually happened! In fact again OR and POV don't even apply! These newsworthy incidents stated as per the sources mentioned (Toronto Star, Vancouver Sun, The Tribune)! Neither have I added any commentary of my own or any inputs from my end!!

--59.182.1.145 (talk) 08:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PoV additions reverted

  • "in the name of religion" - no. Revenge, nationalism, etc. - examples cited in the body.
  • The attack is already covered, wp:UNDUE already. The motivations of the attackers, even their identities, are not known. wp:OR, wp:PoV. He has his own article, it might be worth pursuing there, and a new summary distilled from there to here. Since his article is a wp:good article, that would be an excellent plan.
  • If the PoV-push continues, the page can be protected again.- Sinneed 13:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

First line

"Sikh extremism refers to threats or acts of violence against civilians, or material support for the acts of violence."

I propose addition of "by Sikhs" or "in the name of Sikh religion" or "as a result of Sikh Nationalism" or similar wording.

The definition is incomplete for Sikh extremism. Its more like the the definition of extremism( "Extremism refers to threats or acts of violence against civilians, or material support for the acts of violence.") !! But what is "Sikh extremism" is not explained!!

- 59.182.35.235 (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"by Sikhs" - would be wp:OR unless the perpetrators had been found
"in the name of Sikh religion" - only true sometimes - misleading, consider the following:
"as a result of Sikh Nationalism" - only true sometimes - misleading, consider: for/against Japan... for/against the UK...or similar wording."
Maybe... "Sikh- or Sikhism-related"? Still can't see it.
Please review the long wrangles about this in edit summaries and talk page entries, if interested.- Sinneed 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Outside view

I took a look at this article for the first time, in order to address a query on my talkpage, and sad to say, found it in very poor and imbalanced state. Some standout issues:

  1. The article suffers gravely from recentism. How else can one explain the undue length of the 1990s and 2000s section relative to the short shrift given to the 1980s, which were the heydays of Sikh extremism in service of the Khalistan movement.
  2. No mention of Indira Gandhi assassination (while the article discusses Facebook threats against a Candadian MP; threats against a Canadian journalist; WSO suing CBC etc. - which all is mere trivia in comparison)!
  3. Events leading upto and following Operation Blue Star are summarized in one sentence, while due weight would require them to be much longer than all the events in the 1990s/2000s combined. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, Sukhdev Singh Babbar etc are not even mentioned. I am not trying to equate Khalistan movement with Sikh extremism, but surely violent events by/against Sikhs, with the goal of establishing a Sikh homeland, and which lead to ~25,000 deaths including that of the Indian prime-minister should not be given the short shrift that this article does.
  4. The article is not only poorly focused, but also its scope is ill-defined. I would argue that only those violent acts undertaken in the name of protecting/advancing Sikh religion or Sikh people should qualify as Sikh extremism. Merely being a Sikh is not enough (imagine, for example, regarding almost every violent criminal in US/Europe as a Christian extremist - wouldn't fly for a second). Thus IMO Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh etc are not within the scope of the page.

My guess is that this article has mainly been written by referring to news sources (especially ones from North America), rather than authoritative and scholarly books and papers on the subject - and thus gets the balance of events horribly wrong. I hope that the involved editors will give the structure, organization, and content of this article some more thought keeping due weight in mind. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Maily been written by opposite sides of various edit wars. The remaining debris turned into English prose. The only good thing I can say about it is that it has sometimes been worse. (Sikh terrorism - any version with content).- Sinneed 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the article and talkpage history but, sadly, am all too familiar with the process you describe that leads to such poor and non-informative/mis-informative articles. <sigh> Abecedare (talk) 01:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Reading the article, I am left with the impression that sikh extremism was an anti-British independence movement that reappeared in Canada in the 1980s after operation bluestar - with a few outpost activities in Southall, Birmingham and Brooklyn! Punjab barely gets a mention. It does seem as if the article has been written based on a google search of 'Sikh' and 'Extremism'. The easiest thing to do is to delete most of the content and start from scratch. Sikh extremism is primarily related to the Khalistan movement and there are plenty of good books on the subject so this shouldn't be too hard. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, do we really need this article? Doesn't the Khalistan movement article cover enough bases? --RegentsPark (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
On this last point, if the article is to be related to acts around Khalistan and extremism then it should be renamed Khalistan Extremism and not Sikh Extremism. We cannot redefine Sikh Extremism to suit our own agenda. In the 1800's, the Kuka Sikh's were called "Sikh Extremists". In the Early 19th Century, the Ghadharites (although not exclusively Sikh) were called "Sikh Extremists". Udham Singh and Bhaghat Singh were definitly refered to as Sikh Extremists (although Udham Singh was an Atheist). Later on, the Khalistani's had Sikh Extreme elements within it. People cannot have thier cake and eat it. They must decide what this article is about. If it remains to be called Sikh Extremism, then it should record all acts of Sikhs and Extremism. We cannot define this to suit particular trains of thought. Regards--Sikh-History 14:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we should be wary of formulating our own definition of Sikh Extermism and deciding arbitrarily what should and shouldn't be included in that category. I presume that sociology or modern history texts/articles would be the best place to look for how these terms are defined by scholars. Has any editor come across relevant sources that provide a definition ?
Also, if there are good sources that call Bhagat Singh, Uddham Singh, or Ghadarites Sikh extremist, those should be added to the article, because the current version lacks any such sources. Abecedare (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that. Labeling someone a 'sikh extremist' is not the same thing as including them in an article on 'Sikh extremism'. Bhagat Singh and Udham Singh, for example, were Sikhs who held extreme views on how to deal with the British, but were they part of a movement of Sikh Extremism? They were a part of the same extremist movement that Chandrashekar Azad was a part of and he was definitely not a sikh! That's why I think that the scope should be limited to the Khalistan movement (which means we don't need this article). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
There are references within these articles that name them as Sikh Extremists, and therein lies the problem. We can't just cherry pick what Sikh Extremism is. The way around it is rename the article as Khalistani Extremists. Shall we rename it?--Sikh-History 18:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The reference says "Hopkinson was shot by a Sikh extremist ..." Note the lowercase e on extremist. Basically, Hopkinson was shot by an extremist who happened to be a Sikh. Sikh Extremism implies that the extremism is related to Sikhism. The movement described in the reference had 'sworn to drive the British out of India' and was an Indian independence movement. I think the article should be merged with the Khalistan movement article. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to see the page on Google books. Can you provide the quote labeling the Ghadar party "Sikh extremists", and the context ? Abecedare (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
All due respect, Sikh's are described extremist in lowercase in the Khalistan movement too. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition and scope ?

Here is the best source I have located so far defining the term "Sikh extremist" (in context of the Punjab crisis, i.e. Khalistan movement): "Moderates to Secessionists: A Who's Who of the Punjab Crisis", Andrew Major, Pacific Affairs, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Spring, 1987), pp. 42-58, an article specifically about the definition and use/misuse of such labels. Some relevant quotes:

Anyone who has followed the Punjab crisis from its inception in the late 1970s will be familiar with such labels as "moderates", "extremists", (sometimes "radicals"), "fundamentalists" (sometimes "fanatics"), "terrorists", and "secessionists," all of which are generally prefixed by the word, "Sikh". Yet it is my impression that many people- both Indian and non-Indian, both Sikh and non-Sikh-have little more than a hazy idea of what these labels mean, and to whom the labels are meant to apply. To be fair, part of the confusion springs directly from the bewildering complexity and fluidity of the Punjab situation itself... But the confusion over labels is also the result of their misuse-accidentally or wilfully-by some reporters and commentators on the Punjab situation.
Often, the misuse of labels involves little more than an ordinary journalistic licence: the practice of employing, for effect, labels whose validity in specific instances remains unproven. ... Then there is the slipshod journalism that employs two or more labels interchangeably, as though they are merely different ways of describing the same kind of people.... This leads us to the most serious type of misuse of labels: their employment in a manner that is so politically or emotionally subjective that they are effectively robbed of any heuristic value.

... we may say that the "extremists" are those Sikhs who support the Akali Dal's charter of demands, yet differ from the "moderate" Akalis in the following ways. (1) They place greater emphasis on specifically Sikh (as opposed to merely Punjabi) grievances. (2) They advocate a more confrontationalist (as opposed to negotiatory) stance via -a-vis [sic] the the central government. (3) They have fewer inhibitions about the use of violence to achieve political ends. (4) They reject any proposed solution to the Punjab crisis which does not restore the full "honour" of the Panth, and punish those who have "hurt" the Sikhs and their religion

Two observations:

  1. Note that the term Sikh extremist is not defined simply as the intersection of the categories "Sikh" and "extremists", but is restricted to persons motivated by "Sikh cause".
  2. As the article says, the terms are often misapplied in casual media use. Thus we should be wary of quote-mining by searching the google/news/books etc for "Sikh extremism", and including every person, organization and event that has been so labeled by someone-somewhere. Instead, if it is to be retained, this article needs to be a summary of reliable sources focused on Sikh extremism. We are supposed to be writing an article on the phenomenon of Sikh extremism, and not a "List of things that have ever been called Sikh extremism" (which would have no encyclopedic value, except possibly in the area of media studies).

I have yet to see a scholarly source that discusses Sikh extremism outside the context of Khalistan movement, and all sources that I have seen date the rise of the extremism to the 1970s (often 1978, specifically) and say that it petered out in 1990s. I am increasingly tending to Regents Park view that this article should be redirected to Khalistan movement instead of retaining it as the poorly sourced OR and synthesis it is at present. But lets wait for a few days to see if someone can come up with an appropriate source that provides a suitable definition, and suggests that a wider scope is warranted. Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys have summed it up. Just as that Sikh extremism was a movement to drive the British out of India, the modern day Sikh Extremism was a drive to get India out of Punjab (or what these extremists call Khalistan). See the paralell, and the problem with calling it Sikh Extremism? Thanks --Sikh-History 21:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The former (movement to drive British out of India, which included Sikh participants) is not Sikh extremism, and as far as I have seen no one outside wikipedia refers to it as such. Abecedare (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Disagree Strongly- I can produce many sources that saw the Sikhs who were members of the Freedom Movement as "Extremist Sikhs". The flaw is with the title of the article. I have produced a clear reference above that refers to an Extremist Sikh and the Indian Independence movement. The Kuka's were seen as extremist Sikhs when they massacred Muslim butchers too. Thanks - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikh-history (talk • contribs) 10:54, 13 May 2010
At the 2 extremes, we have PoV editors painting any violence or "extreme" behaviour that might cast Sikhs in a positive or negative light included as "Sikh extremism" and stuffed into the article.
We have - Nationalist fervor for India, against the Brits... violence where the dead guy happened to be Sikh, and speculating that the violence was due to his politics... fighting in WWII on both sides by Sikhs... inter-sect (or in the opinion of some sect members, Sikh vs. non-Sikh) rivalries and violence. I have not been able to see how to reliably separate these out, and the extreme reaction of the various PoV-groups makes editing a very unpleasant task.- Sinneed 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I am very interested in seeing the subject coverage improve, and had previously suggested a multi-way merge... moving the content into various subject articles, for example the Khalistan movement, the various terrorist/freedom fighter organizations, murder of Rama Nand, etc. However, these articles generate very little interest, and are generally rather badly damaged, and the degree of abuse involved in making even part of the changes has led me to leave it mostly alone, mainly trying to slowly improve and avoid further "disimprovement" (if you will).- Sinneed 21:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
All due respect, Sikh's are described extremist in lowercase in the Khalistan movement too. Thanks --Sikh-History 16:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Err Sineed, I have no extreme view. I have always acknowledged Sikh extremism, but it is confined to the Khalistan movement, hence it needs to be merged into Khalistan movement.--Sikh-History 17:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Militant Organisations

Should they be in a Chronological order or order that seperate those from Khalistan and those from Indian Independece. The lead is not relevant to the Ghadar Party. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I have, at present, no real idea how to make this article "work". It seems to have 4 subjects:
  • General hate directed at Sikhs
  • Religious extremism by or toward those who state that they are Sikh
  • Extremism unrelated to Sikhism by those who state that they are Sikh
  • Khalistani-related extremism by anyone at all- sinneed (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe if the article was an explorations of Sikh etremism:
  • where it came from, i.e. militant ideals of faith.
  • where extremism has come into play - against Mughal, British and India.
  • How Sikh extremism is sometimes seen a patriotism, libertarian, and terrorism.

Is that a good way to make it work?--Sikh-History 19:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gadar Party and INA do not belong to militant Oraganizations List. Please understand that the context of the word militant has largly (totally) changed in todays world. (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant#Mass_media_usage) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.79.207 (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether they were extremist or not depends on viewpoint... the sources seem to clearly support militant.- Sinneed 14:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Facebook threats (references deleted)

Dear extremists or otherwise, please don't delete the references regarding the facebook death threats to Mr Ujjal Dosanjh MP, the facebook threat page was removed by facebook, here are the 1,040 results from Google.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=facebook+traitor+ujjal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

Zylog79 (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Sikh Extremism it is WP:Off Topic, and if you persist on adding it I will be forced to start issuing warnings. I got a threat here from some deranged idiot called Satanoid, maybe I should include that in this article? Thanks--Sikh-History 09:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Having read it, I would also say it is WP:Synthesis. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Scope creep

As others have pointed out, this article suffers from the lack of a defined scope. It treats "Sikh extremism" as any act of violence committed by a Sikh, which is wrong. The scope should be limited to acts of violence committed by Sikhs with some religious basis (which is in line with similar article such as Hindu extremism, Islamic Extremism, Christian terrorism). What's the point of including someone like Bhagat Singh here? He was born in a Sikh family, but none of his violent activities were carried out on the basis of religion. This article should have a limited scope, otherwise soon we'll have users adding stuff about robberies or murders committed by Sikhs without any religious basis. utcursch | talk 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to re-delete the material that the IP had deleted and suggest that any material that relates to Sikhs involved in India's freedom struggle be discussed here with the intention of getting consensus on its inclusion. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Wrong on all accounts. The problem with the article is, it is title "Sikh Extremism". You cannot WP Cherry what types of Extremism is valid and is not. If you wish to keep it in its form then I suggest it be renamed Sikh Extremism related to Khalistan. The references relating to Udam Singh and Namdhari's all state clearly they were refered to as Sikh extremists. --Sikh-History 20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
The title is fine. Sikh Extremism means "extremism related to the cause of Sikhism" and does not refer to extremists who happen to be Sikh. If the latter was the case, the article would have been titled Sikh Extremists, which it is not. Udam Singh etc might have been extremists who were Sikh, or even Sikh Extremists, but their actions were unrelated to Sikh Extremism. That's what the title means to me but I'll let others weigh in as well. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Bot Scope or Creep but selective use of History WP:Cherry

Just have a look for one minute at what you are saying. This is WP:Cherry. We had this discussion ages ago and agreed that this article should be merged with the Khalistan related one. There have only been two periods of Sikh Extremism (as recorded in the article).
  1. Related to the Indian Independence Movement
  2. Related to the Khalistan Movement
The Sikh faith by definition is a Militant faith. Some would argue the "Sikh" by definition is Extremist. Sikhism does not deny the use of the sword "when all other means have been failed". The issue here is seperating these acts. We agreed to merge this article ages ago, to avoid this sort of problem, so why are we still discussing it.--Sikh-History 09:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, this looks like this is descending into an edit war, before we have anymore deletes and restores, lets get some WP:Arbitration. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikh_religious_extremism/Archive_5&oldid=1021956220"