Talk:Sikh religious extremism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:51, 4 December 2008

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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,^[1]^[2] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[3] 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^[3]
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.^[3]
The terrorists started using religion to secure the support of Sikhs for political gain.^[3]

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.^[3]

In the early 1990s, a number of militant groups tried to impose "codes of conduct" for journalists; these codes carried a death^[3] penalty for those who disobeyed. Sikhs belonging to non-orthodox minority sects^[3] were also murdered
The extremists also kidnapped civilians for extortion, and frequently murdered them when the demands were not met^[3]. Threats were also made to the minority Hindu population^[3]so as to drive them out of Punjab.^[3]This resulted in thousands of Hindus fleeing^[3] the state.

Problems with using this source

The source has no author or a group of authors (authorship issue).
No publish date of the article or revision date, whatsoever. (timeliness issue).
It is full of weasel words.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.

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?
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".
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.
"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?
"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"?
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?
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.
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.
About Bhindranwale the article says, "He preached strict fundamentalism and armed struggle for national liberation". What is "national liberation" here?
Weasel words - "....500 followers of Bhindranwale and 150 members of other armed groups". What are these "other armed groups"?
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?
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.
Weasel words - "Certain Sikh political parties had exploited that situation for their own ends....". What are these "Sikh political parties"?
Weasel words - New para started with "According to these sources, the purpose of Operation Blue Star..." which sources?
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.
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)

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)[reply]

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

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

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

References in the talk

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers20%5Cpaper2000.html

[2] ttp://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2be0865c-29ba-4dab-9bcc-d945e75007c1

[globalsecurity.org-3] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l Sikhs in Punjab

[4] ttp://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers20%5Cpaper2000.html

[5] ttp://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=2be0865c-29ba-4dab-9bcc-d945e75007c1

[6] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1

[7] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1

[8] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1

[9] ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

@@ Line 368: / Line 368: @@
 ::::: 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. --[[User:Vivin|<span style = "color:#000055; font-weight:bold">vi5in</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Vivin|<span style = "color:green; font-weight:bold">[talk]</span>]]</sup> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Blue_Star#Mediation sensitive topic] run away because of constant covert accusations of being unfair, so come out of the 'being persecuted' mentality. [[User:Legaleagle86|LegalEagle]] ([[User talk:Legaleagle86|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. --[[User:Singh6|Singh6]] ([[User talk:Singh6|talk]]) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 ==Irish Extremism==