User talk:Vivin/Sandbox/Sikh Extremism
"It is both religious and political in nature."
[edit]I think that statement in the source cited, is not saying that there is something inherent in the Sikh faith that can be misconstrued to justify terrorism (like a Crusade, Jehad etc), what it is saying is the problem of Khalistan is one that involves a mixture of politics and religion i.e. the quest to have a state where Sikhs can have a meaningful political dialogue. Any terrorism carried out by Sikhs is purely political. The solution may however involve politics and religion. --Sikh-history (talk) 22:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I thought it was rather straightforward. But, I am going to do a little English trick, I am going to say it contains elements of political and religious-ness, rather than implying the religion contains elements of it. Let's try not to get too hungover phraseology right now, we need to build this article. --Enzuru 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Enzuru, also check the following in this reference - "Sikh separatists desire an independent homeland they call Khalistan in the Kashmir area of northern India. Today, it is the Indian state of Punjab. For Sikh terrorist who have supported that goal, ......"[1] When did this happen? Sikhs are asking Khalistan in Kashmir area of northern India ("which is now Indian state of Punab")? This is straightforward wrong/confusing information in the book. Now that gives us an example how the "concepts" mentioned just like keywords without suffiecient supportive data (or referencing to definition) cannot be picked from sources to base an article on Wikipedia out of them. For example, can we use this statement on "Kashmir area" in this reference and support the idea that Sikhs are asking for land in Kashmir? I'm sure you will agree that will be wrong even if the source is reliable. I seem to agree with Sikh-history that just the mention of the word "religion" does not suffice use to warrant a synthesis of an article "Sikh extremism" which essentially seems like a coatrack of other topics Khalistan and Punjab insurgency. Why are we so inspired to leverage sources in any way we can to produce such an article? --RoadAhead =Discuss= 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I think the key to understanding the whole essence of these extremists who are Sikh lies in what happened in the early 80's. Let me summarise , Indira Gandhi sent her son Sanjay Ghandhi (who died in a helicopter crash), to try to split the votes of the ruling Akali Dal Party (which was supported mainly by Sikhs), and they propelled an obscure figure (Bhindranwala) to set up a rival party to split teh Akali Vote, and thus Congress would be the party "first past the post". What ensued was Bhindranwala turning on the Congress Party and the 1984 debacle occuring. To me this seems pure politics rather than religion? It is not like a dispute over for example the Holy Lands (coveted by Jew, Christiand and Muslim). If the dispute was genuinely religious, I would have no problem with it, but it was born out of politics.Bhindranwala has often been described and Ghandi's Frankestein [2] --Sikh-history (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my God, this is going to go on forever. Two sentences and we already have an issue with what is a blunt sentence from a source (that no context can really change)? Normally I'd discuss this source in detail with you so we could reach a consensus, but so far almost every single source used has been invalid to both of you. If Satanoid wasn't foaming with hatred and disgusting comments, he would have won administrator support on this issue quite a while ago. I don't doubt anyone's good faith on this matter, but I really don't understand what I (or anyone else for that matter) can do at all. I think I am going to just stay off this topic, I don't really have the nerve for this kind of work. Honestly in comparison, the Sunni-Shi'a editing conflicts are relaxing. I thought this would be rather straightforward, but I guess it won't be. I hope vi5in or whoever stumbles upon this the best of luck, as well as you two. This is an important topic I hope we can resolve together as a community, but I'm not going to be the one to help that along, Pashtuns are good for edit wars not for reference wars. --Enzuru 09:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Roadahead can't seem to get the fact that this article has survived an AfD and is going to exist no matter what his personal feelings. Add to that his need to subvert every single reference. I'll try and request mediation in this matter. But things are getting busy at work and I am not sure how much time I can put into this. I had some high hopes for this article, but all for naught. --vi5in[talk] 15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Vivin, you don't seem to understand? still? Why are you so much focused on me as compared to the content and wiki-policies? Could I (once again) request you to focus on the real issue at hand? Let me remind you that AFD decision was "No Consensus". Ironically, the admin who closed the ongoing AFD discussion later came back and expressed lack of knowledge and interest on the subject in discussion. Additionally, no matter what is the decision at AFD, that does not make an article immune from being critically analyzed against the references it uses or the controvertial claims it makes. --RoadAhead =Discuss= 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Afd of no consensus means no decision could be taken. So let us focus on the article. I have proposed the following rewording. --Sikh-history (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned before, I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is your fixation with invalidating the article as a whole. If you can't get past that, you simply can't hope to improve this article. Your passive-aggressive behaviour isn't doing any good. Anyway, if you desire is sincere, I suggest we all start by agreeing on a set of sources. Will that do? --vi5in[talk] 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Come on guys let's focus.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Like I mentioned before, I understand perfectly. What I don't understand is your fixation with invalidating the article as a whole. If you can't get past that, you simply can't hope to improve this article. Your passive-aggressive behaviour isn't doing any good. Anyway, if you desire is sincere, I suggest we all start by agreeing on a set of sources. Will that do? --vi5in[talk] 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Afd of no consensus means no decision could be taken. So let us focus on the article. I have proposed the following rewording. --Sikh-history (talk) 16:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Vivin, you don't seem to understand? still? Why are you so much focused on me as compared to the content and wiki-policies? Could I (once again) request you to focus on the real issue at hand? Let me remind you that AFD decision was "No Consensus". Ironically, the admin who closed the ongoing AFD discussion later came back and expressed lack of knowledge and interest on the subject in discussion. Additionally, no matter what is the decision at AFD, that does not make an article immune from being critically analyzed against the references it uses or the controvertial claims it makes. --RoadAhead =Discuss= 07:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Roadahead can't seem to get the fact that this article has survived an AfD and is going to exist no matter what his personal feelings. Add to that his need to subvert every single reference. I'll try and request mediation in this matter. But things are getting busy at work and I am not sure how much time I can put into this. I had some high hopes for this article, but all for naught. --vi5in[talk] 15:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my God, this is going to go on forever. Two sentences and we already have an issue with what is a blunt sentence from a source (that no context can really change)? Normally I'd discuss this source in detail with you so we could reach a consensus, but so far almost every single source used has been invalid to both of you. If Satanoid wasn't foaming with hatred and disgusting comments, he would have won administrator support on this issue quite a while ago. I don't doubt anyone's good faith on this matter, but I really don't understand what I (or anyone else for that matter) can do at all. I think I am going to just stay off this topic, I don't really have the nerve for this kind of work. Honestly in comparison, the Sunni-Shi'a editing conflicts are relaxing. I thought this would be rather straightforward, but I guess it won't be. I hope vi5in or whoever stumbles upon this the best of luck, as well as you two. This is an important topic I hope we can resolve together as a community, but I'm not going to be the one to help that along, Pashtuns are good for edit wars not for reference wars. --Enzuru 09:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I think the key to understanding the whole essence of these extremists who are Sikh lies in what happened in the early 80's. Let me summarise , Indira Gandhi sent her son Sanjay Ghandhi (who died in a helicopter crash), to try to split the votes of the ruling Akali Dal Party (which was supported mainly by Sikhs), and they propelled an obscure figure (Bhindranwala) to set up a rival party to split teh Akali Vote, and thus Congress would be the party "first past the post". What ensued was Bhindranwala turning on the Congress Party and the 1984 debacle occuring. To me this seems pure politics rather than religion? It is not like a dispute over for example the Holy Lands (coveted by Jew, Christiand and Muslim). If the dispute was genuinely religious, I would have no problem with it, but it was born out of politics.Bhindranwala has often been described and Ghandi's Frankestein [2] --Sikh-history (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Enzuru, also check the following in this reference - "Sikh separatists desire an independent homeland they call Khalistan in the Kashmir area of northern India. Today, it is the Indian state of Punjab. For Sikh terrorist who have supported that goal, ......"[1] When did this happen? Sikhs are asking Khalistan in Kashmir area of northern India ("which is now Indian state of Punab")? This is straightforward wrong/confusing information in the book. Now that gives us an example how the "concepts" mentioned just like keywords without suffiecient supportive data (or referencing to definition) cannot be picked from sources to base an article on Wikipedia out of them. For example, can we use this statement on "Kashmir area" in this reference and support the idea that Sikhs are asking for land in Kashmir? I'm sure you will agree that will be wrong even if the source is reliable. I seem to agree with Sikh-history that just the mention of the word "religion" does not suffice use to warrant a synthesis of an article "Sikh extremism" which essentially seems like a coatrack of other topics Khalistan and Punjab insurgency. Why are we so inspired to leverage sources in any way we can to produce such an article? --RoadAhead =Discuss= 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)