Talk:Sikh religious extremism/Archive 2

The FBI can't speak...

Who said this? And where? There are 3 citations, none of which mention the FBI that I can see.

The FBI states: “The British Authorities have been made aware of our interest in certain individuals residing in the UK who may have connections to Sikh terror groups based in Pakistan.”[1]

Really, 3 citations for a statement? Why not say Person x of the FBI states "whatever"[1] with the link to where he said it... and if it is 120 pages, please, it doesn't cover 120 pages, it covers possibly 2... if it spans a page.

And... what does that have to do with "Sikh Extremism"?

Unless this is improved I will strike it... it belongs in a different article as it stands now, and is ... odd. I must say the editorial remark attached to the statement is as unenlightening as the source. If one knows who said it, and where, why not fix it? :)

sinneed (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you revert that , here is the FBI link; http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0013096 Satanoid (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No one has an improvement? I am killing this tomorrow unless it is improved. sinneed (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC doesn't either... people do.

A report on BBC Radio 4 ^[8] Feb 2008, stated that Britain had been warned of a new terror threat from Sikh fundamentalists who are aligning forces with Al Qaeda

This needs to contain who said what. And please. After turning this into a quote, ref the page number? It is simple and fast. I simply do not see the listed information. There is a lot in there about Sikh extremism, and the possibility of further Sikh violence. Why not just SAY it, instead of weasel-wording: In an extensive set of interviews on BBC program x in 200x, Reporter x stated that "xxxxx". When asked if he had laid down his weapons, Person y concluded that "violence would depend on the government" and that if the government failed them they might "...pursue the last option" or whatever. Let the reader draw the conclusion about whether he is just an extremist or a terrorist.

As it is now it doesn't really say anything about the subject of THIS article. Again it talks about ANOTHER article on Sikh Terrorism. Why not stick to THIS article? sinneed (talk) 04:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh extremism refers to separatist beliefs that involve the formation of a Sikh theocratic state of Khalistan - consensus?

I would like to break this down a bit, and look for consensus.

Can we reach a consensus that: "Sikh extremism refers to separatist beliefs that involve the formation of a Sikh state"

Yes sinneed (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(gap above for short positions - please please keep your response to a line, and carry the discussion immediately below... it will quickly become illegible otherwise)

Can we reach consensus (now we have a source that says so... and no one has presented a source that argues not) that the state will be theocratic?
If not, and there is a source for a non-theocratic state, we can simply put in a wikilink in the lead-in to the arguments for and against the theocratic or secular nature of the state government. I not, and there is NO SOURCE for non-theocratic state, then the "theocratic" should stay in.

Yes - but I expect there is a source somewhere that someone interested and knowledgeable can find, and cite, that says it may not be theocratic. sinneed (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Support - I've yet to see a reliable source describe the nature of the proposed state as anything but theocratic. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, of course its theocratic Satanoid (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

(gap above for short positions - please please keep your response to a line, and carry the discussion immediately below... it will quickly become illegible otherwise)

Clearly, no one is bound by my proposal, and can edit however Wikipedia allows. But I ask each interested editor to join in, and actively seek consensus, not referring to other editors (at all, by name or by classification... such as "extremist" or "vandal" or "hijacker" etc.), not insulting one another, not assuming bad faith, not assuming extremism pro or con. Please... focus on the content.

Hi I think the so called people who wish to have Khalistan have called it a Theocratic and Democratic state, much allong the lines of the British model, i.e. the upper house (House of Lords) has a Theocratic element with Bishops making a judgement on legislation passed. In order to understand the Theocratic-Democratic principle one must under stand the "Miri-Piri" or "Spiritual and Temporal" aspects of Sikhism.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not Sikhism, its about the concept of extremism or terrorism and its relationship to theocracy. Please show where your references describe how, where and why Khalistan is 'democratic' otherwise don't try to cover up the definition Satanoid (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Point 1 - there is no such state known as Khalistan.

• Point 2 - The nature of any such state can only be guessed at. The only guidance we have as to what shape or form Khalistan will take is what the Khalistani's have stated themselves and articles we have on the subject. Both talk about Theocracy and emocracy.
• Point 3 - Many democracy's have a Theocratic element vis a vis House of Lords in the UK.
• Point 4 - Theocracy and Democracy has a direct parallell in the Sikh concept of "Miri-Piri"
• Point 5 - any more deletion of legitimate refrences will be treated as a breach of the 3RR rules and will be reported as such

Regards --Sikh-history (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)--Sikh-history (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

House of Lords Theocratic?

Are you sayng the House of Lords in the UK? See comments and this. A yes or no answer will suffice? --Sikh-history (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid Creating Bad Faith

- Please Satanoid stop accusing good editors of Vandalism and creating bad faith. Please learn how wikipedia works. Please learn what consensus is.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

- I would encourage you to remove and restate... This isn't about a particular editor... it is about repeatedly throwing all our work away.
- Good Faith is not created or destroyed... it is assumed.
- I assume that each editor is trying to make the article better.
One in particular argues that the failure of the AfD means that the article at that time is vindicated as a "good" and "neutral" article... but this is simply not true. Taking that as good faith, berating the editor for being wrong is not going to help. Explaing WHY it is wrong may well not work either... but it would be better. sinneed (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is diffilcult when he persistently assumes bad faith like here. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is not difficult to NOT talk about editors here. It is simple. One just doesn't, and voila...simple.sinneed (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources. Lead-in content. Do we need theocratic and democratic in the lead-in?

http://home.comcast.net/~christine_fair/pubs/Diasporas.pdf

This source is not going to make it as a wp:reliable source

http://www.khalistan.net/

This one either. I am sure it is very important to its authors, but it is far outside the mainstream. If I were to write up my personal political statements, and self-publish, they would not be wp:rs... no matter how many or few thought they were. Please... there are going to be reliable sources out there for something this major. There is a *LOT* of coverage of Sikh issues. If someone can find, say, a BBC article that said "Khalistan.net gives assurances that the goal of Sikh separatists is to form a democratic homeland for all Sikhs." *THAT* would be an RS... but the article would need to say specifically what it means.

I am killing both these sources, and leaving the theocratic in with a flag.

I would like to ask that both these democratic and theocratic be moved to a section discussing the nature of the state of Khalistan... it is clear to me that both words are disputed... and really... both are subject to change. Many people have intended to form democratic governments and failed... it is HARD. Many have tried to form thocracies, and failed... I am not sure it is as hard, or whether it is harder... but it is very difficult.

Hi Sineed, to be fair http://home.comcast.net/~christine_fair/pubs/Diasporas.pdf is publisised under the Routledge group (a reliable source), and the essay and refrence material seems ok. There is a very interesting section/narrative that uses verifiable sources and refrences to describe the Theocratic/Democratic nature of Khalistan. Either way Sineed I will stand by your decision as you have been fair handed all along. The Sikh model for any government id the "Miri-Piri" model, i.e. spiritual and temporal. Seperate but next to one another. The nearest comparable is the House of Lords in England, where religious people sit in the House of Lords (Bishops and Clergy). So clearly there can be a Theocratic element to a democracy.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but *THAT* source is NOT Rutledge group, it is a personal page on comcast.net. Either it is a copyright violation and we can't use it or it is not RS and we can't use it. Out, either way. *NOTE* I had a typo, and failed to sign.sinneed (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps,that we should just mention how some people theorize that Khalistan will be theocratic or democratic, but it is unsure what form of government it would be as there is no country named Khalistan. Deavenger (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note about the home.comcast.net reference... it does not say that the proposed government will be "theocratic-democratic," but actually attests to a conflict of "theocracy vs. democracy": "In these two narratives, both the form of governance posed for this state (e.g., theocracy vs. democracy) and its name (Sikhistan, Khalistan) vary."

As such, it is very much original research for us to interpret this as a combination, "theocratic-democratic." 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It is NOT original research, when articles clearly state that the form of government Khalistan could take could be Theocratic and/or Democratic. If we use History as guidance you will see that not a single Sikh state (Punjab under Ranjit Singh, Patiala, or Nabha ) have been Theocratic. If anything to make a statement that a Sikh state would be theocratic on the base of no evidence IS original research. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The article says "versus" not "and;" nothing suggests a combination of "theocratic-democratic." Your opinion on using "History as a guidance" is irrelevant soapboxing that you best keep to yourself. Fortunately for you, the statement "that a Sikh state would be theocratic" has many reliable sources to support it, so it IS NOT original research. The attempt to hyphenate theocratic to democratic (suggesting both would be involved) remains original research, and even if a source was found, it would stand out against the many sources that do not include "democratic," and thus inclusion would constitute cherry picking and undue weight. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NO = Saying that Khalistan is Theocratic is sheer speculation. How do any sources know what Khalistan could be? The source I have cited IS valid since it puts the argument forward of Theocratic versus Democratic. Using hard historical evidence is not soapboxing. If that were the case we would have to delete every historical article on wikipedia.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The authorities give their expert opinion on what those rebel Sikhs were really aiming for. We go with the experts. Your personal objection to their conclusion is irrelevant. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Authorities? Name one expert on Indian History or Indian Constitutional Affaires who has said this? I have named one (Dr Gopal Singh, incidently a vehemtly anti-Khalistani). I await your answer.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• blink* why no, actually, we go with consensus and wp:rs. And yes, everyone's voice, even yours, is heard in reaching consensus. sinneed (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the lead-in with a proposed wording... ANYTHING about the state is sheer speculation. Whether it will exist. What it will be called. How it will be run. What principles it will be based upon. I would like to remind everyone that anything we say in the lead-in really needs to be covered in the body. It is considered acceptable to LEAVE SOURCES OUT of the lead-in, since all the content of the lead will be in the body, and sourced there. Right? sinneed (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Synthesis and cherry-picking

With regard to Roadahead's addition of the Extension of Remarks from a congressional record, please do not synthesize "theocratic-democratic" by taking a source for "democratic" and hyphenating it to a differently sourced "theocratic." Furthermore, a politician's opinion cannot be placed at the same level as academic sources (the latter often attest to theocratic without mention of democratic). I find it amusing that you have decided to cherry-pick from this obviously inappropriate source given your apparent opposition to cherry-picking in the past. Why the inconsistency? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That source was added because a third notable person (a senator) had acknowledged the fact that the activists of the so called "Khalistan" are proposing it to be democratically based. Obviously, the senator and/or the proponents of Khalistan are not publishing academic journals. Its their claim and its their opinion what the want to implement in the state that they propose. This source, in fact, is not example of "cherry picking" activity like you are trying to link to my earlier addition of tag. In this case, the hunt was to find out if there is some other "non-khalistani" document that notes if the proposed state by the proponents will have democracy (according to the proponents). Let me know if you still feel this is a cherry picking act. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We aren't an academic journal. While an academic source (if published) might be fine, it isn't required. A good academic showing that SOME Sikh Extremists DO NOT want a religious state would pretty much pop the theocratic out of the header. :) And I restored the source. Yes, it may need to go, and it certainly needs improvement, but not yet, please. sinneed (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As you haven't refuted the idea of it being cherry-picking, of course I still consider it cherry picking. You probably will not ever refute it, so long as most reliable sources prefer "theocratic," not "democratic." Understand this now as several issues:

• Synthesis - I particularly oppose that it is being combined to the Kapur reference to synthesize "theocratic-democratic." If some people say "theocratic" (academics and most reliable sources), then we can mention that; if others (activists and associated politicians) say "democratic," we can give them their own space. But do not combine the two to create a new conclusion "theocratic-democratic."
• Reliability - Furthermore, as academic assessment trumps activist outlets and politicians lobbying in favor of the cause (and using 'spin' in great departure from academic assessments), we should use Kapur and similar sources to establish the basic narrative, and allow the less reliable opinions their own treatment at a lower level of prominence in the article. It is unfortunate that some would fight against reliable sources, or place less reliable sources at the same level.
• Undue weight - I can understand the "hunt" for other views, but to then place these few findings (generally not of academic reliability) at the same level as the opposing narrative provided by most reliable sources is WP:UNDUE and cherry picking. Our narrative should be the same as the mainstream narrative of reliable sources, with minority views and unreliable view being given less prominence than the central narrative.

Realize this: so long as most reliable sources are contrary to the picture you and others are trying to present, your attempts to elevate your preferred narrative will be illegitimate. Perhaps because original research was involved, or unreliable sources were introduced, or undue weight was placed upon certain views, but no matter what the fault, policy will continue to support the mainstream narrative of reliable sources. Continuing to aggressively and persistently work against this narrative on Wikipedia will eventually collapse, even if many good editors are driven away and the conflict drags on long, but the ultimate failure of those who work against policy is rather certain, and you will likely not appreciate the consequences you will face. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 04:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

67.194.202.113, Feel free to separate the "theocratic-democratic" statement. Yes, I've already refuted your allegation of cherry-picking on my addition of congressional record as a source of democratic Khalistan claim by proponents. Once again, I went onto searching a third party document because another editor expressed concern that we should look for another reliable document which mentions the claim of the proponents of Khalistan. I feel you are mis-understanding what "cherry picking" means. For instance, if I go ahead and search claims by "Ajrawat" and "Gurmit Singh Aulakh" it will not be called cherry picking as they are notable individuals on Khalistan. Instead, this is called searching for specific notable information. Let me try to make my view further clear if it still not. The Khalistan proponents such Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh are more notable on the claims of implementation of proposed policies in proposed Khalistan than any academic. Now that does not mean that the academics are not worth noting, but that the claimers of Khalistan like Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh who even represented Khalistan at UNPO are more notable on proposed claims. Think this - Mr G is going to build a house named G-villa, and Mr G proclaims - "I am going to color my house all green inside". Then some Mr K writes a paper and states briefly in some line somewhere -"G-Villa will have blue color inside". Here, despite the fact that Mr K may have a Ph. D., Mr G is more notable because its him who is proposing building G-Villa and coloring the walls of his house. At some point, if the "G-Villa" is started by Mr. G, its him who will be responsible for implementing what he claimed earlier, not Mr. K. The proposed Khalistan is a political claim by politicians and proponents of Khalistan, its not a scientific theorem or research that academics become more notable over politicians and academicians. The congressional records are reliable sources and they can be used to state that the proposed Khalistan is proposed to be a democracy. If you feel there are enough reliable reference which are dealing or challenging if implementing democracy will be difficult, then its not a problem to put those lines in some appropriate section on the Khalistan article. However, I feel the lead should have the claim of the proponents of Khalistan. If they are proposing it to be democratic, so be it. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

They are less authoritative than academics. That is what reliability is about. Sure, white supremacists are "notable" voices with regard white supremacy, but we let qualified experts do the analysis and provide the authoritative narratives. Wikipedia is not designed to project what activists claim they are up to, but rather to provide the descriptions that trustworthy authorities say is really going on. "Mr. G" could be lying on his website to garner sympathy; a politician might spin things a certain way to advance special interests or please lobbyists; rather than draw the conclusion ourselves we rely on qualified individuals (in this case academics) to be the primary sources of the article. If reliable sources contend that it is theocratic, while less reliable sources that are closer to the fringe under discussion allege it is going to be democratic, the reliable sources win in our narrative. This is basic WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources:

• Articles should not be based primarily on such sources
• An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention
• "Fringe and extremist sources must not be used to obscure or describe the mainstream view, nor used to indicate a fringe theory's level of acceptance.

We don't know the level of acceptance for the "democratic" idea, but considering that academic assessments of the situation generally don't give it much weight (except when describing the debate among Sikhs overseas as in the home.comcast.net article), it is irresponsible to place it in the lead or another prominent position. Even if these guys truly envision a democratic Khalistan, we have little reason to believe that supporters as a whole see democracy, not theocracy, as the future. You are drawing up material from these extremist proponents in direct violation of our guidelines. The last thing we are supposed to do is allow these groups to own the Wikipedia narrative. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear 67.194.202.113, I feel you are trying the wrong key. For a proposed Khalistan, the proponents are more notable in the lead on what they are proposing. Its not Mr. Kapur who is proposing Khalistan. If Khalistan was, lets say, a cosmic phenomenon (over which neither Mr. Kapur nor Mr. X,Y,Z had any direct control) and Mr. Kapur held a degree in astronomy, he certainly is more reliable than anybody with no such degree. However, Khalistan is a political issue and the proponants are more NOTABLE; if anything like so called Khalistan (which they propose) comes into being, they have direct control of implementing what they propose - (the right key is notability). And no, the statements of the proponents are not fringe theories. Feel free to add a section to the article where different views of scholars can be discussed about the viability of anything in the proposed Khalistan - be it democracy, water supply, or a healthy economy. But once again, when we discuss a proposed idea (like that of Khalistan), the proponents claim or proposal makes the lead not the scholars predictions. The criticism of the idea of Khalistan can follow in the article; it can also include if somebody feels so and so called person (Mr. G like you said) is lying. Noting the statements of 2 of the leading activists of Khalistan not a violation of any wikipedia policy. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"when we discuss a proposed idea (like that of Khalistan), the proponents claim or proposal makes the lead not the scholars predictions" - this is directly contrary to WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. See my three bullet points above, I tire up repeating myself on this. If you don't like our rules, take it up at Wikipedia talk:RS. I am willing to bring this up at the reliable sources noticeboard if you think that might help bring fresh minds to the debate. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

67.194.202.113, I disagree that its the violation of WP:RS#Extremist and fringe sources as you state. I cannot stress more on the fact that exactly these guys are all about Khalistan and lobbying for it. While you may find it convenient to bundle away my ongoing arguments and explanations as "don't like our rules", I would take you back to my words to check if I said anything like "dont like rules". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing - you can do better.

Again, a hugeonicgigantic GINOURMOUS source is cited: name="P.T.King">Extensions of Remarks - May 26, 1994 by HON. PETER T. KING of New York in THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Proceedings and Debates of 103rd Congress (First Session)

The proceedings of the 103rd Congress? This is a fine source, and in the body of the article, with an appropriate quote or even summary, WITH THE REAL citation, it could be useful. As it is, it is like the book source citation that calls out ***120 PAGES*** of source for a sentence. How about if I just cite "Library of Congress, some book, somewhere, on some pages, not sure where but by cracky it's in there, uh huh, TRUST ME!".

Please consider, in the body of the article, "Peter King, New Your Senator, said 'whatevertheheckhesaid'"[cite]... then it won't be needed in the lead-in.

And another please. If you cite a source, do it. I see your writing. I read your comments. I **SEE** you do better.

I put the source back in (please everyone avoid deleting sources, if you don't like one, please discuss it here... or better yet, quote a better source that refutes it, THEN *discuss it here* rather than kill it).

Also, please, before objecting to a source, check thinking at wp:rs. Wikipedia isn't an academic journal. It is an encyclopedia. Its rules are tighter than a blog, and looser than juried scientific journal. :) sinneed (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you insist upon keeping it, please at least stop synthesizing it with the "theocratic." The views are separate, so please separate them. Also, the views come from sources of different reliability, so be sure that the narrative favors the academic assessment (Kapur, though I could bring others to the table if necessary) over the politicians and activist outlets. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 67.194.202.113, the initial refefrence Theocracy vs Democracy (emphasis on the VERSUS) should not be used to twist it to Theocracy-Democracy / oil - water / good-evil / Theocracy and democracy ....or whatever concoction you wish to use to prove the impossible, it just wont do. Satanoid (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out the reference from UK, US and Candadian intelligence use the term Theocratic (there is no mention of 'democratic') which explains why they are on International agency watch lists including the FBI. Satanoid (talk) 10:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

New 'Democratic' replacement link is also non existent?

The first two references used to prove any connection to democratic, has been replaced after I pointed out that the references were inadequate. Glad to see they have been removed.

The new reference used to prove the same, also fails to give adequate references to 'democracy', 'democratic', or 'democratization'

I will remove the reference again, as this also fails as before to convey or prove the above. Satanoid (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid stop removing links that are verified and adding in links that are not verified.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The Issue Is Far More Complex Than This

I just cannot believe that educated people are treating this issue in such a manner. Using tabloid journalists and unverified intelligence reports in not the way to go forward. This article demostrates how the issue has changedso much and this, which talks about Khalistani's as not terrorists, but more interested in human rights.Other JSTOR articles are interesting , too. This article gives an insight into the type of state Khalistan would take and this is an insight into the Sikh Psyche. Another discussion in from parliament that looks at the Sikh question and labelling Sikhs as terroristsRegards --Sikh-history (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

More of the same sort of congressional records. Sorry fella, but politicians working on behalf of these causes in their remarks before Congress will never replace academic sources (which happen to hold contrary views). They can, perhaps, be used to indicate a politician's opinion in a discussion about politicians who support the Khalistani movement, but unfortunately these non-experts (to say the least) cannot replace experts. I'm afraid that you may be grasping at straws here, again. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sorry fella" - as you are not being friendly, such a dimunitive is an insult. Stop it.

"which happen to hold contrary views" - GREAT! Add them. And leave the others. The reader is then at liberty to decide, rather than having heserits mind made up in advance by others.

"I'm afraid that you may be grasping at straws here, again." Joyfully, our opinions about whether those we disagree with are "grasping" at ANYTHING is not our concern, and they are free to grasp or not grasp as they wish. sinneed (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I think if I did not have the name "Sikh" in my tag and just "History" (as I majored in 19th Century British History), the sources I have put forward, would not be subject to so much extreme prejudice!! Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sinneed, buddy, don't yell at me, I don't mean you any insult. Please make a better effort to understand WP:UNDUE. We are not supposed to present both sides equally and let the reader decide; we are supposed to place the most weight on the mainstream account of reliable sources. These sources refer to theocracy and religious terrorism used to establish it; I can rally some if you wish, though I never had the idea that you contested the fact that the theocracy view is the majority view.

You are "grasping" because you continue to present use unreliable sources, undue weight, and original research in attempt to bolster non-mainstream, less reliable views on the subject. The grasping refers to the impotent arguments and inconsistent approach to the rules that you cling to in order to avoid accepting that the democratic view is not the mainstream reliable account and thus should not be presented as an equal in the article. Why is it important? Because this grasping is abusive editing, and continuing could have consequences for you. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh-history, trust me honey-chile, your name isn't the problem. Your edits are. Luckily, you can fix that easily by complying with policy instead of beating around the bush in a vain attempt to bolster the non-mainstream, less reliable view because you personally consider it correct or preferable. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop using patronising language. The problem is that certain people here wish to use sensationalist headlines as the basis of an academic article. So long as sane people are editing Wikipedia, that will not happen. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your attempt to disregard a vast multitude of sources from generally reputable newspapers as "sensationalist" is not very convincing. You should build your arguments from Wikipedia policies and guidelines; trust me, ignoring tons of reliable sources is not appropriate. BTW, I've presented a list of academic and book references to "theocratic," so feel free to contend with that as well. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sections still needed in support of the Lead-In.

Everything covered in the lead-in should be supported in the body of the article. Ideally, the lead-in will be a summary of the article key points.

"Most often referred to as Khalistan, the state may be theocratic[1], and may be democratic.[2][3]"
This deserves a section, I should think. Also, the sources and statement are clearly in dispute. The section would give adequate room to present more than one view of the issues.

"Burgess argues[4] that Sikhism has proven prone to religious terrorism, which has been used in the struggle for the envisioned Sikh state.[4]"
There are good references about the terrorism and violence, but the section needs work, and the terrorism/violence link needs a bit of expansion there.

"It has been suggested that the solution to the Sikh Extremists' concerns has both political and religious elements.[5]"
This needs expansion in the body, as if it is mentioned, I missed it.

"Sikh extremism has decreased significantly since mid-1992, although Sikh militant cells are active internationally and extremists gather funds from overseas Sikh communities.[6]"
This needs expansion in the body, as if it is mentioned, I missed it.

I would like to propose that any addition to the lead-in be PRECEDED by covering it adequately in the body. Just an idea. sinneed (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea, can we have a bit of information on previous forms of government in Sikh ruled states? That would give a good pointer as to what form a Khalistan would have been.--Sikh-history (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"previous forms of government in Sikh ruled states"...No actually, it would not. *shrug* We need wp:rs for what is planned, perhaps. Historicity *MIGHT* be interesting, but does it really belong on the Sikh Extremism article? sinneed (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

We have WP:RS for what is planned, a theocracy. Isn't that great? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. Now, please everyone leave it in and TALK about it. Restored the deleted content. Let those who champion it have a chance to argue their cases, please. sinneed (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Sinneed I keep trying to add in refrences with ISBN numbers but they keep getting deleted eg A History of The Sikh People -Dr Gopal Singh ISBN-10: 8170231396 page 701 - 'If, however, India was to be divided, the Sikhs would demand and independent sovereign Sikh state with its own Constituent Assembly'. Why? --Sikh-history (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. Why are you asking me? Sorry, I replied on my talk page and did not know the question was here. sinneed (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

List of news stories - prose or out?

This needs to be fleshed out if it is going to stay. This article is not a list of news stories. If anyone cares about these stories, they need to be included in the article as prose and cited, I should think. Unless there is some reason to keep them I will kill them off in a few days or weeks or some such. No great rush, and they can be re-added when someone finds the interest. I will paste them here if I kill them out of the article. sinneed (talk) 17:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Riots organized by Congress?? Seriously?

(organized by Congress[citation needed])- I am going to kill this unless it is *WELL SOURCED*. Not 200 pages of propaganda, not 120 pages out of a book. A statement by a human, with a citation where they said it. Actually, I am going to kill it now. It can be easily restored if someone disagrees. sinneed (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi sinneed, the 1984 Anti Sikh masssacre is alleged to have been masterminded by the politicians of the politicla party "Congress - I". I'll work on finding the suitable references for this. I think saying just "Congress" would be confusing. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There were subsequent confrontations between fundamentalist Sikhs and non-Sikh extremist groups.

I think this would be worth expanding, if anyone has the interest, knowledge, and sources. :) Is it supported by the single source there?

If you dont know the differences between...?

Whether its democratic, theocracy, autocracy or kleptocracy or simply don't know the differences, then why add your pov ?

You have changed your choice of references over and over. The references I provided were deleted, without explanation Satanoid (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Idea: Instead of deleting one-another's references and then discussing, why not each add his/her/its own, then come here to explain the objections? (Yes I know I have been guilty of killing 2 references, that was before I realized just how VERY contentious this series of articles is. I make no claim to perfection. I don't even claim to be good at this. I am just trying to help with a random article.). sinneed (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also... "if you don't know the difference between"... then more cuteness... then "pov"...all bad karma. Why not assume good faith instead? Why not simply explain why you disagree? This is about the content. All the best. sinneed (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I notice you don't answer questions, answering a question with another question ?? Satanoid (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Well I notice you don't answer questions, answering a question with another question ??" I don't mean this to be abrupt, and I am not being intentionally obtuse: I have no idea what you are talking about.sinneed (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Satanoid, I don't think you understand the fundamental point that there is NO definition for the type of Government for Khalistan. One source you have cited says Theocratic. Every other source (including Khalistani's) say democratic.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Terrorism

Who proposes a newer article on Sikh Terrorism ? This article got (edit - damaged), it started good but all the references were POV according to those who wanted it deleted Satanoid (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

language please. The article is improving slowly. I think the consensus is that Sikh Terrorism would be unacceptable. I liked it, but I do understand the objection. sinneed (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I could take a number of sources and write a separate article on Sikh terrorism. Still, I like the idea of having one page to deal with all of this. If every instance of Sikh terrorism is, in fact, related to Khalistan and/or Punjab insurgency, we could perhaps centralize our treatment in one great narrative at one of those articles. Perhaps Sikh separatism? This article could then be left for cases of Sikh extremism not related to the Khalistan issue. I know that Muslims get a hard time over non-terrorism related extremism (such as policies towards women, gays, and whatnot), but I apologize that I don't know if there have been any notable cases of Sikh extremism not related to the Khalistan issue. I really didn't do any research about Sikhs until I decided to intervene at these articles after seeing a constructive user driven away by the fighting. Do any of you know if Sikh extremism is an issue outside of the separatism? If we resolve this, it could be a great step towards moving forward. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus for flag removal

These are just ideas. CLEARLY no one is bound by my ideas and may edit however Wikipedia allows. However, there are statements that edits are PoVish... yet the PoV flag keeps being removed.

Please use this area to indicate that you believe there are no PoV edits currently in the article, or that there are so few and/or so minor that the flag should be removed.

• Leave in for now - multiple editors are currently reverting one another's edits and sources as PoV. - sinneed (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• We'd be deluding ourselves to pretend that we do not have POV issues. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please use this area to indicate that you believe there are no wp:coatrack edits currently in the article, or that there are so few and/or so minor that the flag should be removed.

• Neutral - so many of the sources are so poor, and their use is so bad, that all I feel I can reliably say is the the article is generally poorly sourced. sinneed (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
• The whole situation is a confusing mess, but it still seems that Sikh extremism is really not the central focus of this article. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is definitely POVish, with some very dubious sources being cited. Having followed the Khalistan question since it first started in 1947 to when in 1983 there were reports of terrorist activity, to the present time, one can see that the entire extremist is linked entirely to Khalistan. Today there seems to be of a political element to the Khalistan question, with politicians like Simranjit Singh Maan, who seem to be spearheading a democratic attempts to get Khalistan. If however, you ask the majority of Sikhs, they may be disgruntled with the Goverment of India, they certainly do not want Khalistan.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It can't be theocratic!

Since I've seen some glimmers of doubt coming out of certain users, let me note that there are dozens of sources supporting the "theocratic" description, both from academic writing and from mainstream news sources. Here are some news sources since they are easy to pull up:

• LA Times - separatists, pursuing their vague, politically unlikely goal of an independent Sikh theocracy called Khalistan ("Land of the Pure") in Punjab, have escalated a campaign of terror
• International Herald Tribune - Militant separatists in Punjab fight for a theocratic nation they call Khalistan, the "land of the pure" (meaning no Hindus or Muslims, only indigenous Sikhs)
• Philadelphia Inquirer - More than 1,800 people have died this year in violence connected to the militant drive to create in Punjab a theocratic Sikh nation named Khalistan (Land of the Pure.)

And some that I accessed using NewsBank. I'll bold the relevant parts:

• "The assassination was the latest episode in a cycle of worsening violence centered on demands by radical Sikhs that they be permitted to establish their own theocratic nation, called Khalistan." - from "ASSASSINATION OF SIKH MODERATE FUELS ESCALATING INDIAN VIOLENCE" THE ORLANDO SENTINEL - Sunday, September 8, 1985, Author: By Pranay Gupte, Special to The Sentinel.
• "It was the worst terrorist attack in the five-year history of separatist violence in Punjab, where a Sikh faction is seeking a theocratic homeland for its sect. The proposed homeland is called Khalistan , or land of the pure. " - from "Murder of 22 Triggers Riots in India" Newsday (Melville, NY) - Tuesday, December 2, 1986, Author: Rone Tempest. Los Angeles Times.
• "Sunday's terrorist attack was the worst in five years of separatist violence in Punjab, where a Sikh faction is seeking a theocratic homeland. The faction calls the proposed homeland Khalistan "land of the pure. " - from "SLAUGHTER ON A PUNJAB BUS A FATHER'S TURBAN DID NOT SAVE SON" The Record (New Jersey) - Tuesday, December 2, 1986, Author: By Rone Tempest.
• "The Sikh radicals are fighting to create a theocratic nation they call Khalistan -- "Land of the Pure." This dream of a Sikh state is an old one, but it is only in the past five years that separatist rhetoric has given way to armed rebellion. Today, the terrorist violence threatens the stability of all India. " - from ""MADNESS HAS TAKEN OVER OUR BEAUTIFUL LAND"" Boston Globe - Sunday, January 18, 1987, Author: Colin Nickerson, Globe Staff.
• "The 42-year-old prime minister obviously cannot accede to the Sikh militants' demand for a separate theocratic state which they want to call Khalistan" - from " Is Peace Possible in India's Troubled Punjab? Gandhi's suspension of the Sikh government may fuel separatist violence." Newsday (Melville, NY) - Tuesday, May 19, 1987, Author: Pranay Gupte. Pranay Gupte is a columnist for Newsweek International, and a contributing editor of Forbes magazine.
• "More than 800 people have died this year in violence related to a nearly 5-year-old campaign by Sikh militants battling to create in Punjab a theocratic nation named " Khalistan ," or "land of the pure. " Some 1,250 died in 1987. " - from "PUNJAB SECURITY ALERT DECLARED" The Record (New Jersey) - Sunday, April 24, 1988, Author: FROM THE RECORD'S WIRE SERVICES.
• "More than 850 people have been killed this year in attacks related to the more than five-year drive by the militants fighting to create in Punjab the theocratic nation of "Khalistan ," or "land of the pure." Some 1,250 died in 1987. " - from "SIKH ATTACKS PROMPT A RED ALERT IN PUNJAB" Seattle Post-Intelligencer - Saturday, April 30, 1988, Author: P-I News Services.
• "A senior police officer said security forces had no plans to enter the sprawling white marble shrine, which is being used by an estimated 80 to 100 Sikh separatists as a base for their violent 5-year-old campaign to establish in Punjab the theocratic nation of `` Khalistan ," or ``Land of the Pure." " - from " Gunfight at the Golden Temple - Sikhs open fire on Indian troops at separatists' base; 2 civilians die, 5 troops hurt" Houston Chronicle - Monday, MAY 9, 1988, Author: Houston Chronicle News Services.
• "The militants are using the Golden Temple, the Sikh religion's holiest place of worship, as a base for a bloody campaign to establish in Punjab the independent theocratic nation of `` Khalistan ," or ``Land of the Pure." More than 900 people have died in extremist-related violence this year." - from "10 killed in Punjab fighting" Houston Chronicle - Tuesday, MAY 10, 1988, Author: United Press International.
• "fundamentalist Sikh militants fighting to establish the independent theocratic nation of " Khalistan ," - from "EXPLOSIONS IN INDIA CLAIM 28" The Record (New Jersey) - Wednesday, June 1, 1988, Author: FROM THE RECORD'S WIRE SERVICES.
• "More than 1,800 people have died this year in violence connected to the militant drive to create in Punjab a theocratic Sikh nation named Khalistan (Land of the Pure.) Many extremist attacks have been against Hindus, a minority community that the militants are trying to terrify into fleeing the Sikh-dominated state. " - from "SIKHS KILL 7 IN ATTACKS IN PUNJAB" Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) - Sunday, July 31, 1988, Author: United Press International.
• "a second bomb planted outside a theater in the city by Sikh extremists waging a bloody campaign to create the independent theocratic nation of Khalistan in neighboring Punjab state. " - from "SIKH BOMB KILLS 7, INJURES 28 ON CROWDED INDIAN BUS" Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - Saturday, August 13, 1988.
• "Police promptly blamed the attack on Sikh extremists who have been fighting since 1983 to establish the independent theocratic nation of Khalistan , or Land of the Pure, in Punjab." - from "AT LEAST 12 KILLED IN SIKH ATTACK" The Record (New Jersey) - Tuesday, October 25, 1988, Author: FROM THE RECORD'S NEWS SERVICES.
• "separatists fighting to create in Punjab an theocratic nation named `` Khalistan ," or ``Land of the Pure."" - from "5 DIE IN SIKH ASSAULT" Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - Sunday, May 21, 1989.
• "Sikhs fighting to create in predominantly Sikh Punjab the independent theocratic nation of Khalistan " - from "15 ARE KILLED BY BUS BOMB IN NORTH INDIA" Philadelphia Inquirer, The (PA) - Friday, April 20, 1990, Author: United Press International.
• "Extremist-related violence has left more than 7,000 people dead since 1983, when Sikh militants began a violent drive to establish the independent theocratic homeland of " Khalistan ," or "Land of the Pure," in predominantly Sikh Punjab. " - from "SIKH EXTREMISTS SLAY 11, INCLUDING POLICE OFFICIAL" The Record (New Jersey) - Wednesday, May 9, 1990, Author: United Press International: Wire services.
• "where Sikh radicals have been fighting since 1983 to create a theocratic state to be called `` Khalistan ," or ``Land of the Pure. " - from "SIKH SETS OFF BOMB" Deseret News, The (Salt Lake City, UT) - Sunday, August 19, 1990.
• "But his death is unlikely to slow down those fighting for Punjab's secession from India and the establishment of a theocratic Sikh nation. " - from "INDIA SIKH LEADER KILLED" Rocky Mountain News (CO) - Friday, July 31, 1992, Author: AP, REUTER AND DPA.
• "The group is the largest and most active seeking Punjab's secession from India and the establishment of a theocratic Sikh nation" - from "ASIA - Sikh Rebel Leader Shot Dead by Police" THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - Friday, July 31, 1992, Author: Chronicle Wire Services.
• "who in 1982 laid the foundation of the separatist campaign for a theocratic Sikh state to be called Khalistan , or Land of the Pure" - from "SIKH GUERRILLA KILLED BY POLICE IN PUNJAB" San Jose Mercury News (CA) - Monday, March 1, 1993, Author: Associated Press.

And that's not bringing out my JSTOR ones, which I'm lazing out of because not all of the PDFs have searchable text. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"It can't be theocratic!" - I sense this isn't the real title?

Brilliant research by 67.194.202.113 Satanoid (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought its pretty obvious that as Indian Punjab is already a democratic state, its proposed transition by extremists would be a change to a Sikh state ie a THEOCRATIC state, it defies logic that a Sikh state is really out to promote democracy , its anything but - you can't help but laugh at the lengths some people go to prove oil mixes with water. It doesn't Satanoid (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop being so prejudiced Satanoid. Turkey is a MUslim country and a democracy. America has been defined as Christian democracy. The UK a democracy actually has a Theocratic element to it's upper House (The House of Lords). --Sikh-history (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My references were deleted again by sikh history without explanation? Satanoid (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No Satanoid actually it was you who deleted and killed a whole raft of references without explanation. The fact you cannot undertstand what a Constituent Assembly shows you need to start reading more and "googling" less. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sensationalist news headlines are a dime to a dozen. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Sikh-history here. The practice of applying sensational labels by reporters is not new. I can go ahead produce examples where the same news media kept changing its wording on the same news item without publishing any clarification on the previous news it published. On a sensitive issue like the one in discussion, is quite unwarranted for the news media to use the labels like separatists/extremists/terrorists/fundamentalist interchangeably without appropriate explanation or justification of the usage of the term. Just as a backgrounder, during 1980s (even until much later) in Punjab/India, the main source of news was Doordarshan (government controlled TV, one and the only one channel available at the time) and radio (which was also govt. controlled) and there was media blackout as well. 1984-1985 is a well known media blackout. As such, anyone who was against the policies of the ruling political party "Congress-I" was conveniently labeled separatist,extremist,fundamentalist and what not in the news items emanating from the government controlled media (Congress-I was the ruling party and in control of media). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your belief that these articles are sensationalist, and hence inappropriate for a topic you deem sensitive, is irrelevant. Show how these sources do not pass Wikipedia criteria for acceptable sources. Argue from Wikipedia policies and guidelines with respect to the sources, instead of your opinion on whether or not these sources treat the conflict in a way you agree with. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

^=Discuss= agree totally. I remember there was one channel, media blackouts, and British reporters being suppressed. Punjab was cut off if I recall at the time. I remember something similar happening when Indira Gandhi's policy of forced steralisation was taking place. I think we must try and see beyound that. See my post below from the National Union of Journalists , on the Sikh Holocaust, or Kristallnacht (which someone here denied never happened). Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sensationalist news headlines are a dime to a dozen." - I think I understand that you don't value the citations, but... what is your point?

Imagine if all this effort were put into improving the article instead of squabbling about the lead-in. It seems clear to me that the state, if it ever exists, and if it is successfully named Khalistan, might well be Theocratic. Since it will most likely need support from the democracy-phile states of the world, it will most likely be a representative democracy. I would even take the GREAT risk of saying I expect it would be a Parliamentary form. Allllll this angst over these 2 issues, which cannot be known in advance, but can ONLY be intentions in dreams today, when the entire article is largely unwritten. Amazing. It appears that both of you have forgotten more about the subject than I will ever know. Why not apply that knowledge to the article? sinneed (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, this is for Sikh-history)Where oh where did you get the brilliant idea that the headlines (sensationalist or not) are the point here? Did I use bold on the headlines? Admit it, you are faced with insurmountable evidence, and after my last exam, I'll search through those academic journal articles again, pull out the theocracy there, and then the game will really be over. Or at least, it should be, if people would not drag their feet, feign stupidity, and otherwise try to thwart Wikipedia rules out of pride and agenda. Not necessarily you, of course... I'm just a worry-wart.

You should try to be more constructive, these sources are entirely reliable and within the mainstream. And I brought a ton of them. Don't try to tip-toe around it or drag your feet. Work with it. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 14:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want me to be constructive and be a "google" researcher, rather than pursue real academia, then you are sorely mistaken. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am "sorely mistaken" if I expect you to be constructive. There ya go, you've admitted what you are up to on your own. As for the "real academia" you claim, your original research can best be kept for those academic journals you publish in. Oh wait, you run your own website to soapbox your views. Ah, yes, that's what the "real academia" do, instead of real publications. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Real academia does not mean printing off a tirade of sensationalist healines fronm newspapers. It mean real reports from experts in the field. You have yet to provide even one expert in the field of Sikh affaires and the Indian Constitution. Regards.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has relatively little to do with "Real academia" and much more to do with headlines. Current history is rarely tractable academically... time hasn't separated the winners from the losers... while it may never be clear, even with hindsight, "today" we don't have even hindsight... just propaganda, eyewitnesses, and "sensationalist headlines". Wikipedia in a formal way does not care about propaganda or eyewitnesses... unless they get published... and the vast majority of the publishing is going to be under "sensationalist headlines."

Sikh-history, I don't care if you think the headlines are sensationalist. They are reliable newspapers, and the material I quoted explicitly supports the "theocratic" take. As for experts (assuming none of the journalists had expertise, which is unlikely), I've used Kapur and Hardgrave. You didn't care. I can bring more, but will you care? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The reality is, you have typed into a search engine the words "theocratic and Khalistan", and tried to pass it off as research. Sorry, but that is just poor scholary. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 15:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing poor about searching for pertinent information; all of my sources are reliable, explicitly attest to the position I am supporting, and are numerous. Take another look at WP:OR. We are not here to be academics who do novel research, or come up with our own synthesis or take on the topic to include in the article. It isn't about what we think is right, it is about what most reliable sources say. I don't know how many more ways I can explain this to you. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is the absurdity of the statements you are manking. You are using newspaper headlines to attest that a state of Khalistan (which does not exist), despite all proponents of Khalistan saying it will be democratic, despite Sikh historians saying in all likelyhood its would have a Constintuent Assesblt (not Theocratic), and no comments from experts in Sikh or Indian constitutional afaires? Not one ISBN number to back up any claim? Reagrads--Sikh-history (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've brought several journal articles and a ton of items from reliable newspapers. All of these sources explicitly attest to my position. You've brought one Sikh historian, and his material doesn't explicitly support your position, and even if it did, it would not outweigh all of the other sources. Again you are ignoring the academic journals even though I've already reminded you of them. I'm not required to use things with ISBN numbers, just reliable sources. By the way, not all proponents have said Khalistan will be democratic. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, your "ton" means nothing without verifiability. I have brought forward THE leading expert forward on Sikh History and Indian Constitutional affaires forward here, and he has clearly stated that Sikhs demanded a state with a Constituent Assembly. How is that a Theocracy? Which proponents of Khalistan have specifically stated they wish to have a Theocratic state?--Sikh-history (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sinneed, please realize that we aren't here to decide whether it seems reasonable that there could be a democracy, or a theocratic democracy. I don't have any personal care about Sikh stuff. I simply want the most common account found across reliable sources to trump all minority views as the content rules dictate and recommend. I hope you will agree that this truckload of news material from sources that do not seem questionable (please prove it if they are) cannot be thrown aside as Sikh-history has tried to do. At some point all of this feet-dragging begins to seem disingenuous, it really does. I get a feeling that no matter how many reliable sources I bring, and how explicitly they may attest to the dominant "theocratic" description, certain users will always oppose them by feigning stupidity and otherwise trying to dodge the rules. These editors do not personally agree with the view carried by most reliable sources, and want their view to dominate the article instead.67.194.202.113 (talk) 14:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"I simply want the most common account found across reliable sources to trump all minority views as the content rules dictate and recommend" - Absolute rule of the majority has *NOTHING* to do with Wikipedia. We are indeed here to decide what to say, based entirely on wp:rs, based on consensus. That you do not understand these 2 things seems quite clear, and it is going to make reaching consensus very difficult indeed: if even one strong editor insists that he/she/it has the "truth from deity" or the "truth of the majority" or whatever and that NO OTHER is allowed... that is PoV, classic... and consensus will be reached only when that editor changes or wanders off. It is a weakness of Wikipedia. I like that about Wikipedia... but it does make some conversations really...really...Really long.sinneed (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking "absolute," just dominance. This follows from WP:UNDUE. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is a very inappropriate and baseless accusation. Not cool, man, not cool. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with the inappropriate. I again want to strongly recommend not talking about each other, but about the edits. There is more than enough work to be done without inflaming the personalities.sinneed (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop at once. In fact, editing your posts would be good. Please. sinneed (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed those comments, but does this IP think people are fools to think a search engine reprents academic research?--Sikh-history (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You are supposed to strike them out, not remove them. We use the search to find sources (on JSTOR, on NewsBank, on Google, wherever). If the sources are reliable we take them with us, and place the most common view found in reliable sources in the most prominent position in our narrative. We are not supposed to produce anything new, or present an altogether different picture from the mainstream positions. If you want to do your original research, you have your own website; you can do whatever you want there. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have produced nothing new. The research I have found refers to an established author and the comments he made on what Khalistan or a Sikh state would start off as, i.e. with a Constituent Assesbly, this is clearly NOT Theocratic.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR. It is not our place as editors to reach our own conclusions beyond what is explicitly found in the source. Your reckoning that "with a Constituent Assesbly, this is clearly NOT Theocratic" is your own conclusion/assumption derived from his use of Constituent Assembly, and without saying whether or not it seems a reasonable conclusion, it does not come explicitly from the source and so should not feature in the article, out of respect for WP:OR. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Errr no. I am not making any conclusions or doing any original research, just debunking your claim that Khalistan would be Theocratic, and using a heavyweight source to do it, rather than flimsy sensationalist headlines as Roadahead so easily debunked.Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

sikh history, you are debunking all references as sensationalist.

Satanoid, please define what a Constituent Assembly is? --Sikh-history (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Constituent Assembly to form a Theocratic State?

Dr Gopal Singh in A History of The Sikh People - ISBN-10: 8170231396 page 701 - from actual transcripts of what was envisaged by a Sikh State states - If, however, India was to be divided, the Sikhs would demand and independent sovereign Sikh state with its own Constituent Assembly. A Constituent Assembly to form a Theocratic state? Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Idly... why not? It isn't impossibly difficult to have a Theocratic Democracy. It certainly isn't easy... if the clerics have the Truth from Diety (or Dieties), what need for a vote?... but it is done. Many think the US is a bizarre Christian democracy. Others would argue that it is a Humanist democracy, and declare Humanism to be a religion. Instead of posing a questionstatement, why not say what you mean? Frustrating. I sense all this knowledge in your heads and you won't share. :) sinneed (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, India is a secular democracy consisting of Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Pharsis, Jains, Sikhs and Atheists, the proposed state of khalistan or sikhistan or whatever you would want to call it wouldn't address the issues of non Sikhs, I mean do you really see Atheists or Muslims wanting to live in a sikh state ? No; as history has shown, may non sikhs were gunned down, thats not democracy in my book son. What's the color of the sky where you live by the way ? Satanoid (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ermm first you do not understand what a Constituent Assembly is Satanoid. Secondly a Secular Democracy can be openly Christian, heard of the term "God Bless America". The UK has a democracy with an openlly Theocratic, Upper House (House of Lords), with Bishops sitting and making judgement over legislation. Turkey is an Islamic Democracy. Germany has openly Theocratic Parties in Power (heard of Christian Democrats?). You are needlesly singling out Sikhs for special treatment, namely because you have lost the debate and have resorted to insults and vandalism.--Sikh-history (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again, a democracy is a state where its Government is elected by the people, the word electorate does not apply in a Khalistan, part of the electorate was gunned down in from 1983 to 1992. The House of Commons is the elected Chamber. If you can state which Memeber of the house of Lords sates that the UK is a Theocratic state, I'll eat my hat. Until then a Sikh state remains just that.

Satanoid (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly there is no state of Khalistan (and there never will be), secondly in Dr Gopal Singh's account (a neutral if not hostile account of the situation), he state that the Sikh state was envisaged to have a Constituent Assembly. The House of Lords is not elected and has a Theocratic element as shown here Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about my throw away remarks but I feel I am needlessly being taken away from real research due to an article based on "sensationalist headlines" and no real academic process. If I were to find out what shape or form I would do the following:

• Have there been any theocratic Sikh states?
• If so what form did they take, if their weren't then what shape did they take?
• When was the first mention of a Sikh State after the last Sikh state was annexed by the British?
• When this Sikh State was mentioned, how was it to be formed?

Now I think I have tried to follow this logic, but throw away remarks like "fella" and "honey", and are dismissive of this real academic research and "google" research seems to be given precedence. I have at pains tried to find out when the mention of Khalistan was made, and also find a comment from an expert in the field of the Sikhs and the Indian Constitution (Dr Gopal Singh). He quite clearly states that the aim was to have a "Constituent Assemebly" for the Sikhs, i.e. an elected body by the people to draw up a constitution. Now if that is not democracy, then I do not know what is?

Your points on "Christian Democracy" are excellent, because in the UK we have a Democratic state with a Theocratic Uppper house. :-)Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Trying to squeeze "democratic" out of a source that doesn't explicitly attest to it based on your own reasoning? WP:OR. Trying to take a source (that ostensibly says "democratic") and place it up there with dozens more sources that "theocratic?" WP:UNDUE. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 14:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

These rules do not appply here. Stop hiding behind them. Admit it, that you do not understand the mechanics of a Democratic system. DR Gopal Singh IS an expert on Sikh history. Dr Gopal Singh IS an expert on Indian Constitutional affaires. DR Gopal Singh IS neutral (if not anti) on Khalistan. Lets check your sources. All headlines from newspapers. No experts mentioned. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"These rules do not appply here." - Um, actually, Wikipedia rules do apply here, so sorry, no OR, no UNDUE for you. But your quote is classic, I'm gonna remember it for a long time.

As for your other claims, dishonesty or a remarkable amnesia? "All headlines from newspaper" - a complete lie. I wasn't using the "headlines," but rather information from the bodies. Furthermore, my sources are not "all" news. I brought a chunk of news sources to show how "theocratic" is the mainstream view. I can drag in more than Kapur and Hardgrave (though it really isn't necessary), if you might actually reconsider your position, but I get a feeling you won't. For now, you will continue to pretend that taking one or two references (possibly OR, and for the Congressional thing not even reliable) and placing their claims at the level of dozens of other academic and mainstream news accounts is not UNDUE. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words. This rule does not apply here. This is a verifiable source from an expert of note. I would be interested in the "experts on Sikh History and Indian Constitutional affaires you produce? Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing was twisted about it. You said the rules don't apply, but they do, which is unfortunate for thoriginal research that you are cultivating. I don't know where you got the absurd notion that I need, specifically, an expert on "Sikh History and Indian Constitutional affaires," but there is no such requirement at WP:RS#Scholarship. I've brought Kapur and Hardgrave journals articles so far, but you didn't care. Would you care if I brought more? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

So now Dr Gopal Singh is original reserach? By your measure I could bring in an expert on making Cambert Cheese to comment on constitutional affaires. Ridiculous. It is like talking toa 5 year old child.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your use of Gopal Singh is original research aiming towards a goal that would also be undue weight. The reference does not explicitly describe the the envisioned Khalistan as aiming for "democratic" government or "democracy." 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand English? Do you understand what a Constituent Assembly is? One thing it is NOT is Autocratic. Give me an expert like Dr Gopal Singh over meaningless newspaper headlines anyday. You are out of your depth here.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Your OR may make sense to you, but we still need explicit support from the source. While you continue in the fallacy that the news results can be pushed aside, your are also ignoring the academic opinions I have brought, even though I reminded you of them. That's not cool man, that's not cool. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

What "academic" opionions have you brought? I am still waiting? Please furnish Kapur and Hardgrave so that it may be analysed. Please tell show me that a Constituent Assembly is a Theocracy?--Sikh-history (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Kapur said "The matter in issue was the creation of 'Khalistan', a Sikh theocratic homeland." The precise issue is in my contribs. Unfortunately I have to go now; I have an exam to study for. But I will be back later on today to continue this matter. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Where has Kapur stated this? Who said this to Kapur? Where did Kapur get the idea of a Theocratic state? Has there ever been a Theocratic Sikh state before? Page numbers please, along with text.--Sikh-history (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is Kapur? Does he have direct control over implementation of policies in Khalistan if it becomes a reality from a proposal? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 16:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• "The matter in issue was the creation of 'Khalistan', a Sikh theocratic homeland" - Rajiv A. Kapur. "'Khalistan': India's Punjab Problem." Third World Quarterly, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Oct., 1987), pp. 1206-1224.
• "Khalistan was imagined as a theocratic state, a mirror-image of 'Muslim' Pakistan." - p. 52, Sikh Nationalism and Identity in a Global Age, by Giorgio Shani. Published by Routledge, 2007.
• "or only within a theocratic state, a Khalistan (that is, an independent state controlled by the khalsa)" - p. 41, Studying the Sikhs: Issues for North America, by John Stratton Hawley and Gurinder Singh Mann. Published by SUNY Press, 1993.
• "escalated their terrorist campaign to establish a theocratic state called Khalistan." - p. 21, India: The Challenge of Change, by Pranay Gupte. Published by Methuen/Mandarin, 1989.
• "where a Sikh theocratic state (Khalistan) could then be set up." - p. 288, A Panoramic History of the Indian People, by Dharam Bir Vohra. Published by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1992.
• "The aspiration of Khalistan - the ultimate Sikh theocracy - has utopian and millenarian overtones." - p. 160, Strong Religion: The Rise of Fundamentalisms Around the World, by Gabriel Abraham Almond, R. Scott Appleby, and Emmanuel Sivan. Published by University of Chicago Press, 2003.
• "He advocated the formation of an independent Sikh state (Khalistan) in which state and religion would be combined (miri-piri)." - p. 454, Fundamentalisms Comprehended, by Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby. Published by University of Chicago Press, 2004.
• "the landlocked, theocratic state of Khalistan, composed of a number of federating units..." - p. 142, Partitions: Reshaping States and Minds, by Stefano Bianchini, Sanjay Chaturvedi, Rada Ivekovic, and Ranabir Samaddar. Published by Routledge, 2005. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, not as much noise anymore? Interesting. I'll go ahead and integrate these sources into the lead. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear A baby turkey (formerly 67.194.202.113), Comment like "Hmm, not as much noise anymore? Interesting" is not constructive, it may even sound insulting and/or pretentious. Anyway, was able to steel some time and I went through Rajiv A. Kapur's article. Unfortunately, nowhere Kapur justifies his use of "theocracy" which he has used like a keyword or just a label. If I missed any of Kapur's logic feel free to point me back. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets also see what the notable proponents of the so called Khalistan are saying:

• "Shortly before India exploded its nuclear devices, two leaders of the ruling party publicly stated that they want Pakistan to become part of India. India has deployed long-range missiles in Punjab, Khalistan. Punjab, Khalistan has been the battlefield for all the previous wars between these two countries. It will be a killing field again if the Hindu Nationalists get their way. These atrocities only underline the Sikh Nation's need to live in freedom in a sovereign, democratic Khalistan. " - Statement of Dr. Gurmit Singh Aulakh President, Council of Khalistan at the Genocide Day demonstration Indian Ambassador's Residence, Washington, D.C., August 15, 1998
• "On October 7, 1987, the Sikh Nation declared its independence and the sovereign country of Khalistan was born. The Sikh Nation is set unalterably on a course to freedom, although this movement is nonviolent and democratic." Hon. Peter T. King of New York. In the house of representatives, Thursday, April 18, 1996.
• "A quarter million Sikhs murdered since 1984 has not deterred the Sikh nation from our commitment to establish an independent and democratic Khalistan" Gurmit Singh Aulakh (President, Council of Khalistan) in a document recommended for reading and submitted into Congressional Records by Hon. Edolphus Towns of New York, Tuesday, April, 1997
• "A sovereign, democratic Khalistan will be the West's strongest ally in South Asia. Freedom for Khalistan, which would neutralize India's military power, will be a stabilizing force in South Asia. Free Khalistan will encourage India and Pakistan to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and will work for a nuclear-free South Asia. Furthermore, Khalistan will trade with the rest of the world in an open market economy. Lastly, all people, Sikh and non-Sikh, will have full democratic rights and liberties in Khalistan." Gurmit Singh Aulakh (President, Council of Khalistan) in a document submitted into Congressional Records by Hon. Edolphus Towns of New York, Thursday, MAY 26, 1994.
• "In a democracy you cannot rule against the will of the people, and the essence of democracy is the right to self-determination. It is time to press India, the self-proclaimed ‘‘world’s largest democracy,’’ to do the right thing and let the people have their freedom" [2]
• "Khalistan seeks independence by peaceful, democratic and non-violent means. It requests the UNPO among others to press India to allow Amnesty International within its borders to investigate the human rights violations in Punjab, Nagaland, Kashmir and all other places where people are suppressed." Conference Report, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, International Conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, January 22-23, 1993[3]
• "And we should actively support democracy for the people of Khalistan and all the occupied nations, such as Kashmir, Nagalim, and others, in the form of democracy and self-determination. They should have a free and fair vote on their status, the democratic way. Does India have a problem with democracy for the people it rules? Edolphus TOwns, Tuesday, Sept 19, 2006 (also has another document from Council of Khalistan). http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/record/2006/2006_E01750.pdf
• "He also asserted that he had not hand in the decade-long turmoil in Punjab as he and his associates strongly believed in democracy. “We will achieve Khalistan” by using democratic means and release our party’s political resolution on November 19 in Jalandhar, he said." Jagjit Singh Chouhan. [4]
• "I mentioned last year that with the Akali party election victory in the state of Punjab last February, there was hope that finally peace, stability and a measure of democracy would return to the Sikh homeland" Gurmit Singh Aulakh, testimony at UNO and the Council of Khalistan's press release, submitted into Cogressional Records by Senator Dan Burton, Aug 07, 1998 [5]

--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is OK when you do it A baby turkey (citation needed) as in the source ^ Robert L. Hardgrave, Jr. "India in 1984: Confrontation, Assassination, and Succession." Asian Survey, Vol. 25, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1984: Part II (Feb., 1985), pp. 131-144 used here. Use use 1 source to show Indira Gandhi's bodyguards were extremists despite a "ton" of other reliable sources saying they were not extremists, and yet you see fit to incorporate the word extremists, based on one source? That is double standards.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please PLEASE don't. Please integrate them into the article, then cover the consensus in the lead. Please. sinneed (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "cover the consensus" in the lead? Consensus does not override our content policies. A bunch of Islamic extremists may agree that Osama bin Laden should be labeled as "hero" in the lead, but our NPOV, NOR, RS, UNDUE rules would make that consensus inappropriate. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is please go write the article, achieving consensus, maintaining an NPOV avoiding OR, using RS, without giving UNDUE weight to any position. But please don't write the article in the lead-in. The lead-in is ... the lead-in. Right now it leads in to an article that essentially doesn't exist. sinneed (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Like I've stated before. Instead of searching the keywords and depending on those, one needs to look first - what are the proponents of Khalistan claiming, second - if these articles are giving the logic behind why they are calling the state theocratic, why the article/authors feel that the proponents are going to implement "theocracy". Once again, Khalistan is not a fact but a proposal and as such when refering to it in the lead, one needs to keep the claim by the proponents of Khalistan. Feel free to put in article body something like - "most of the authors perceive the proposed Khalistan as a theocratic state" (thats the author's problem not the proponents). I've said this before/above and let me reiterate it again - any criticism of the proponents of Khalistan and the idea of Khalistan should go into the article content ( and let me add, content of article Khalistan) not here. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Most of these requirements you are giving me are not taken from Wikipedia policies or guidelines. I plan to say directly what numerous reliable sources say. I don't need to explain why the authors and reports call Khalistan a planned theocratic states; I only need to use reliable sources in a way that does not involve original research or place undue weight on a minority view. Please, if my plans go against specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines, please explain, but do not set upon me artificial requirements. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear A baby turkey, I feel that after long discussion the gist of my argument is still not clear to you, that is - the major proponents (and members of the govt in exile) are duly notable. If they are claiming it to be "democratic", so it be. Are you denying the notability of Gurmit Singh Aulakh, Jagjit Singh Chauhan, Paramjit Singh Ajrawat on Khalistan? By the way, notability of certain individuals on certain specific issues is within Wikpedia policies. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"One needs to keep the claim by the proponents of Khalistan" - I agree that this is not so. We need to stay with WP:RS, not to the view any particular editor holds of it. Not one who insists on the public statements of separatists. Not one who insists that academia is more mainstream than "Time". Not one who insists on not giving undue weight to the minority (by the editor's view). Not one (such as I) who sees "Time" and such as much more useful than any of the former. sinneed (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Any criticism of the proponents of Khalistan and the idea of Khalistan should go into the article content ( and let me add, content of article Khalistan) not here" - I can't agree with that either. Any criticism (in your view - beware PoV) of Sikh Extremists (separatists) must not appear in the article about Sikh Extremism? Either you need to rephrase or we are very much wasting wear on our keycaps talking about this. Most certainly there will be serious negative content in this article that refers to the Sikh Extremists. This will most especially be true of those (few or many) who advocate or pursue terrorism, violence, or intimidation. Your comments worry me. I think you should reconsider them, and edit. sinneed (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on previous comment: Dear sinneed, my comment (to which you have responded) above were the result of ongoing discussion with A baby turkey (formerly 67.194.202.113) as such the comment was written with assumption that they are the natural progressional on a point we were discussing. I should have approriately addressed and worded them, agreed. The argument that the proposals of Gurmit Singh Aulakh, Jagjit Singh Chauhan et all (that they want to implement democracy in Khalistan) are less notable than academic articles is yet not appealing (atleast to me). No, I did not mean that any criticism of "Sikh Extremists" must not appear in the article, rather what I wanted to say was that - any criticism of their (the notable proponents, not all) idea of Khalistan, be it any difficulty in implementation of democracy by the academic/scholarly articles should go into the the original article Khalistan (my comment was rather not clear, I agree with you). Also, I must request precaution in the usage of extremist/separatist tag interchangeably because its problematic; the reason being that it is not necessarily true that a separatist is also extremist and vice versa. The news items from the disturbed times in Punjab are sensationalized somewhat unwarrantedly (also note that there was media blackout for long duration in Punjab), and the usage of words like fundamentalist/extremist/terrorist/separatist labels interchangeable by the reporters is rather unwarranted. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 23:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point to all this?

I mean, all I see is a fairly idiotic argument what people may want a theoretical state to look like. Ignoring the possibility that more than one idea exists, is this relevant to this article anymore? I think it is perfectly fine without a mention of it and at best you guys are over a single word in the lead that I'd just remove because it differs with the articles that actually discuss it. If you guys want to keep going, that's fine with me but I'm really not a fan of continuing arguments for the sake of argument. I suggest we just archive this whole thing and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Ricky. There is no point to this. We are arguing over a Theoretical State. The way some of the articles are panning out it is looking as if every Sikh who carried out an assassination, must be linked to Sikh Extremism. For example here and again here.The problem with lumping together Sikh Extremism is differentiating genuine acts of Sikh Extremism, to those of revenge killings and fights between different sects. The Killing of Darshan Das, a classic example, where the killers alleged he raped a young sikh girl. The killing of the editor in Punjab, again, attributed to extremists, but at the time the feelings of non-alligned extremist Sikhs were in flamed by his articles. Then there are the sects within Sikhism known for extremist behaviour, namely Dam Dami Taksal and Akhand Kirtani Jatha, of which the article takes no account of. These sects are the tiniest of tiny minorities within Sikhism. Any views?--Sikh-history (talk) 11:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, the article clearly should be focusing on sikh conduct related to the creation of a new Sikh state, or around that general area. Anything else is just 'Sikh' 'extremism', which is just silly. We need more general sources not pulling together random news articles. In response, I'm going to keep on going with the same method: continually remove the sections and bring them to talk. If I see the same editors coming up again and again, I'm going to suggest that we lock the page down and force everyone to argue first and stop wasting time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war of Dec 16 2008

Please stop at once. At the very least, look hard at any edit you are about to revert. I implore you not to. sinneed (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to clean out the talk page. Everyone needs to follow WP:TALK and stay on point. Also, if you can't agree on a term, compromise, and that means follow dispute resolution. Edit war again and I'm going to protect the page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to hold back and give everyone a day or two. However, if the talk page continues to be a disaster, I'm going to start going into hyper-archive mode with every section that remotely goes into personal attacks whisked away, along with serious and severe warnings. If you want to argue, discuss content, not editors. We are all going to be civil here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Separatism versus extremism

First question: is the issue Sikh separatism or Sikh extremism? In other words, is the argument that everyone who is a separatist is by definition an extremist? If there is a separation, we should start with more mentions of Sikh separatism and discussions about the various ways in which the Sikh community is dealing with their more extremists fringes. Separatism belongs at Khalistan movement, while extremism should be the focus here. We should not be concerned with the people's beliefs but people who's actions are considered extreme. Those who believe the ends justify the means. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, then why is the term democratic still in the intro? Democratic institutions don't usually have a habbit of taking ideas from religious fundamentalist ideologies, or is everyone blind ? Satanoid (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, what democratic? Either way, that's not relevant. What the separatists actually want shouldn't be a concern here (there are plenty of other articles for those arguments) and I've removed that from the introduction. Our concern is their means, not their goals. There are probably separatists doing things the right way (articles, letters, discussion, negotiations) but they are being ruined by the extremists. It's better to focus the article on topic, rather than let it go wild. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

First, I think we should archive the entire mess about theocracy or not and start over. There are plenty of articles where that dispute can go on. I find it hilarious that this article has pages of edit wars over this while Khalistan movement just says "a non-democratic theocratic state" and nobody cares. That's where that argument goes. I decided to be bold and removed the entire argument here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682, Khalistan movement is about the movement, the actual word that should have been linked there is Khalistan. I agree with you that Khalistan movement went unnoticed, so are many other articles on Punjab and Sikh issues which need balancing and adding more appropriate information. Hopefully, there will be enough time to correct all of those. I am going to replace the word in your edit with "Khalistan" because that is actually the country. Let me know if you disagree, I can explain my edit Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I mean, that the movement in general is called the Khalistan movement. Worded wrong, but either way, that really should be the focus of the discussion and that it is signifies a distraction from the more serious concerns. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

FBI saying that British authorities are aware

Ok, I remove the FBI sentence here because I cannot see where in the references that third-hand statement is coming from (the FBI is saying that the British are aware of the FBI's interests). Please, everyone needs to learn to use the citations templates (template:cite news, template:cite web). These articles could be shifted any day and we would just have a pile of dead links with lost information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war of 20 and 21 December. Stop. Now.

Keep your edits small. Do not mass revert another editors 5 or 10 edits because you don't care enough to revert the 1, 2, 3, or 4 that were bad. If you feel their edits were vandalistic, then take action.

STOP THE EDIT WARRING NOW!

I am going to each of the 3 talk pages and warning you. sinneed (talk) 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fairness

This article in my opinion is very balanced and fair. It should be reviewed by experts on Sikh terrorism for addition insight and to make the article more complete and informative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.201.2 (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti

The information about Bhatti seems like undue weight. A general sentence on the fears of being branded I think is all that's necessary. The section really needs more on the International Sikh Youth Federation and its connections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think there is another issue with this. As far as I could follow this event (of the the play and events thereafter), I could not find if the identity of the person/persons who allegedly issued threats to Bhatti is known. As such, its unwarranted to give so much weight to this incident. I also found that the Sikh organization in UK, British Sikh Consultative Forum (BSCF), issued statements expressing no endorsement of any violence and had commented on the article earlier here, if that helps. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 21:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just so the records are clear, this is the section I removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed Longowal and Singh mentions

I removed the reference to Harchand Singh Longowal and Beant Singh because there wasn't anything there. First, whether they are moderate isn't settled, and even then, second, the fact that two moderates were victims of extremists doesn't really mean anything. It's a nice fact but only if something like their deaths became a rally-point of sorts, that would be relevant. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

IPCS citation

I'm not sure I'm confident in the IPCS citation here would be a reliable source. First, the paper itself is very lightly sourced. A ten-page paper with 14 citations (really 10 with numerous being interviews) isn't encouraging, especially given its very general view. Second, maybe I'm a little biased, but the fact that its author Dhillon was merely an intern and is still studying to get her B.A. doesn't exactly inspire me. I'll go look for better sources later this week if I can. I'd rather remove the entire section. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's Ok with me.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sikh-history, I'm in agreement with Ricky81682 on this issue. I'm sure more credible authors and sources can be found for the same. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 21:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I have added one in from JSTOR? Maybe check it? Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked, thanks! Also fixed the JSTOR citation. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"Codes of conduct"

Ok, what in the world does that mean? I mean, the whole article is mess of cobbled-together language, but what does a militant group's code of conduct mean? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Burgess, who?

Hey folks!, the article currently states "Mark Burgess argues that Sikhism has proven prone to religious terrorism, which has been used in the struggle for the envisioned Sikh state". I went ahead and started googling who is Mark Burgess and hit one musician and another computer engineer; other than hitting the article content itself which can be found at CDI web. Does anybody have the information on the credibility of Mark Burgess on such topics? (please help finding that if you do). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If the original citation has not been lost in the edit war, you might check it. The citation as it is now makes no sense to me and leads nowhere interesting for me. But so many editors were madly deleting, changing, and reverting one anothers' sources ... *shrug*. Once upon a time it led to an internet site that was at that time used to support some PoVish language like "Sikh Extremism is Religious Terrorism." I read what it said, and the author "Mark Burgess" If I Recall Correctly said "Sikhism ahs proven prone to terrorism" or similar. sinneed (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here I think is the original source, from something called the Center for Defense Information. Still no background on Burgess. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

*nod* lost in the war. As I have said before, I think that stuff needs to be handled in the body, and lead-in summary in the lead-in. I have no clue whether the source or the author are competent to stand in pouring rain and understand why they are wet... :) I also looked over the site and they don't speak about their authors that I can see. This makes (and made) me dubious of the whole thing. sinneed (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, their staff search button is down. sinneed (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when I originally brought the reference, I had the URL included. Somebody removed it, probably without good reason. In any case, Mark Burgess is the director of the World Security Institute at Brussels [6]. If y'all are still dissatisfied, I can find more sources for the terrorism being "religious," it isn't exactly a controversial claim. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why, but CDI, WSI and GlobalSecurity all seem like having a set of common people behind them. Yes, please bring in a reliable, neutral source that defines "Sikh terrorism" telling why its Sikh, why its "terrorism", who is being "terrorized" and why this terrorization is "religious terrorism" and we can discuss further. But once again, please do not search for keywords and put here to be used for article lead. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you require a "neutral" source? How exactly do you define "neutral"? And why do I have to use sources that adhere to your definition? A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, but again, whatever needs to be said needs to be said in the body, and cited. Then it can be used or not, in the lead-in. The claim was that "Sikh extremism is Religious terrorism", with this as the citation. I changed the wording (as I have NO intention of trying to determine whether or not that source is RS, and just accepted it) to reflect what the author said in the article... which was "... Nor is religious terrorism peculiar to the Abrahamic faiths and their offshoots. For instance, Sikhism has proved prone to it also, with the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandi (in retaliation for what was perceived as the Indian Army’s desecration of the Golden Temple in Armritsar in 1984) leading to a wave of violence that was to claim over 35,000 lives. As with other religious terrorism, this violence was motivated by political as well as religious considerations..." sinneed (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying if they find some reason to get rid of Burgess, I'll just drag in more sources. While searching JSTOR yesterday, I found some very interesting discussions of the religious basis for the separatism. Apparently Sikhs believe that there should be no separation of religion and state; the combination is called miri-piri. To get back to the point, the religious element of the violence is hardly disputed by serious sources, so I can grab some more references if I need to, but hopefully people will be honest here, and not give me the additional work. Generally they don't care how many sources I bring anyway. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"they find a reason". wp:assume good faith - Please. Please. Jump into the body and write up and cite whatever it is you think needs to be said. This squabbling in the lead-in to an article that essentially doesn't exist seems frivolous. "be honest...and not give me the additional work"... please wp:assume good faith and just wite the article. Be Bold. But please, no more edit war in the header, no more "they find a reason" "be honest" "not give me the additional work". The words in the article are contentious to you, very clearly. There are words that you want there. Those words need to be supported by sources. Other editors have words they want in the article. Those words too must be upheld by the sources. I call on every editor with knowledge of and a desire to write the words, without killing off the work of others, but by building on it... and not in the lead-in, but in the body, in coherent English (whatever flavor I enjoy working in them all). *I* don't care and no one else does how many sources you bring, as long as they support the words. 1 is plenty, if it is an wp:RS. But again... leave the opposing views in, even if you don't value them at all, for now... as a show of courtesy even if not respect. sinneed (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

From WP:AGF: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." I've seen downright dishonesty about the content of sources, continual moving of goalposts to avoid the weight of the many reliable sources I've brought, inconsistent understanding and application of the rules from these editors. I've been accused of prejudice and reverted using tools reserved for fighting vandalism. I have no reason to assume good faith at this point. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that. All the best.sinneed (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem, and as I demonstrated on the Gandhi article (and here), your approach A baby turkey (citation needed) is inconsistent.

Back to the problem of religious terrorism. Has Sikhism become prone to religious terrorism because of the political issues surrounding Khalistan? or has Sikhism the religion a problem inherently that makes it prone to religious terrorism? I would argue (and I can use credible sources), that linguistic issues, land issues, water issues, representative issues, culminating in the demand for Khalistan (which was initially proposed in 1947), has led to a view (wrongly or rightly), that Sikhs were being persecuted, and hence why extremism has come about. As it reads, the implication is that there is something inherent in the Sikh faith that makes it prone to terrorism. Any views? Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this discussion to another section, perhaps #Separatism_versus_extremism or somewhere new until this one settles the issue of whether to keep Burgess' claims. I'd rather have shorter section which can be easily archived over the chaos we currently have. That also makes it easier to go back and review. A baby turkey seems to be indicating that if this source is eliminated, he'll be able to find another supporting the same conclusion. Let's deal with it then. Also, can you not attack other users? That not relevant here either so be fair as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the part about Sikhism being "prone" to terrorism quickly seemed unfair to me, and it seems a bit unusual, so I'd support removing that part. I introduced Burgess primarily to source the claim that we have seen "religious terrorism," which I don't consider controversial, but if people do not want Burgess to be used even for that basic point, I will simply find other. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

A baby turkey, you do realize that instead of waiting until "they find some reason to get rid of Burgess", you can actually help us find out more about this guy's background. All we have is he is a director for WSI Brussels and was a research analyst for CDI (which, per World Security Institute, was merged into WSI). Odd that his biography doesn't list his education. Or better yet, give us the other proof of the statement. I personally don't care if Burgess is or isn't a reliable source. Is there a reliable source on that statement? On the other hand, you can give us one source at a time and we can discuss each one, driving everyone crazy. At that point, I'm going to ask that we follow WP:BURDEN strictly and keep everything out that isn't first sourced well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

His background (education and work background) is contained in the organization's press guide: Press Guide to WSI Staff. However, Ricky, my point is that I don't care about using Burgess that much, and suspect that reasons will be found to oppose him on this or that grounds. Nothing seemed fishy about the think-tank to me. If it is eliminated on some pretext, I'll just move on and find another source for the "religious terrorism." Why don't I just do this now? I'm trying to avoid the extra work. I believe I saw the other sources on JSTOR, but JSTOR has been annoying me a bit, because not all of the PDF files have searchable text. A baby turkey (citation needed) (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Times as a source

I removed the link to the Sikh Times here. First, I don't see any connection to what the article is using it for. Second, while the book review might be interesting, we would be citing the book as the source. The review itself isn't relevant (this is not an article about that book). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Darshan Das

I'm not sure about the inclusion of Darshan Das. First, www.spiritualwarriorstoday.com is not a reliable source and seems to have a severe conflict of interest. Second, the article itself doesn't say anything other than "he received opposition from orthodox Sikhs", "he was gunned down", "Many believed this to be the work of religious extremists" and "others believe it was retribution for an alleged rape of a young female devotee." That doesn't indicate anything unless we are going to with the definition that anyone who is an orthodox Sikh is by definition an extremist. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Again I agree. This same article says the gunning down may have been revenge for the rape of a young girl.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an article so much as a webpage describing him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For Those Who May Need a Quick Synopsis Into the Events Surrounding the Article

This article by the National Union of Journalists is a good quick read into the events surrounding what happened around this time. It is title aptly Kristallnacht.--Sikh-history (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:TALK. Keep discussion here to being about the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I have gone through this source and I feel it is relevant to the article. It has documented the counter claims by the people of punjab about the violations of Human Rights and killing/torture of thousands of innocent civilians by the police. As the names of Beant Singh and K. P. S. Gill, so this could be a useful source to add the other side's point of view to balance the article --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 17:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I wasn't sure if this was a relevant source or an off-track discussion like below. If it's actually useful, then that's fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think what adds weight to it is that it is part of a campaign by the "National Union of Journalists" rather than individual journalists trying to go for sensationalist headlines.--Sikh-history (talk) 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A lesson to learn from Wahhabism

There is no such thing as Wahhabism, every educated individual on Islam knows this. It is a myth that was created by sensationalist journalists (towards the left) in order to pinpoint a name for radical Islam, and also thereby differentiate it from mainstream Islam. There is a group within Islam called Salafism, and often the term Wahhabism is insultingly applied to Salafism, to imply this group follows Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab rather than the Salaf. Sometimes Wahhabism is used to describe Sufi-inclined political groups like the Muslim Brotherhood. Sometimes Wahhabism is used to simply describe Osama bin Laden and his sympathizers. But most importantly, Wahhabism doesn't exist, there are several contradicting definitions that have little to do with one another. Outside the Muslim world it is tied with radicalism (each source tying it with a different breed of radicalism) while within the Muslim would it is used insultingly against Salafis, and perhaps sometimes Deobandis if one is feeling particularly intolerant on the that day. The moral of this story is that Wahhabism, which doesn't exist outside of media sensationalism and insulting epithets, has an article from Wikipedia, that is separate from Salafism (which I have argued against), separate from a Wiktionary blurb about it being an insult, separate from the Muslim Brotherhood, and separate from anything else. It is its own article, and the reason it is is because there are plenty of sources to describe the boogeyman known as Wahhabism, hence we cannot combine it with Salafism nor with anything else, because sources exist defining it, and part of our project is to define things according to reliable and stable sources. While we can mention scholarly scrutiny in the article (which we do, and we're working on), we must stand by the fact that this minority scholarship effort to understand the term correctly is contradicted by a vast corpus of reliable scholarship and media. --Enzuru 16:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as Wahhabism, every educated individual on Islam knows this." - A couple of folks who consider themselves "Wahabis" will be shocked when I mention this to them. Actually, no they will be mildly amused.sinneed (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Off-topic and completely unsourced as well? See WP:TALK before I wipe this off into the archives. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to all for responding to an off-topic post here. I usually do better than that, and carry it to an individual talk page, if I just must answer.sinneed (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I've heard of this Sinneed only a level of individuals, but I've never witnessed it myself, especially not on a mass level (entire sites, literature, and etc using the term). Can you find me, sinneed, a site for Wahhabis? You know, we have Shiachat, Sunniforums, Salafiway, etc... and I was making a point about this article, which I contributed to for a while, with another article, Wahhabism (and Salafism) which are sourced. --Enzuru 18:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have something you want about this article, please be more specific. Otherwise, I would suggest continuing this on your user talk pages as we really don't need the talk page to divert off again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Enzuru is being a bit "Sufic " here. It's like placing a flower petal on a cup full to the brim. :-) --Sikh-history (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's among my favourite Babak Nanak analogies. Anyway, you can archive this. --Enzuru 05:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only attributed to Nanak. See The Way of the Sufi - by Idries Shah. The forward. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Air India Flight 182

Ok, in retrospect, after removing this unsourced section, I can vaguely see User:Satanoid's connection. However, I can't why it is in the UK section or how much detail to include. I really don't think the entire Flight 182 issue needs more than a sentence, probably under Babbar Khalsa. Again, this is why I don't think the India/UK/North America split makes any sense. Offering it here for opinions instead of edit warring. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I especially liked the time-line idea. Focusing on the events and who claimed or was found to be responsible might hopefully take some of the contention out of the article, and might allow different interpretations of each event and the situation at the time to be either included or not. sinneed (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/punjab.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I worked on the wording. Hopefully it is better now. Feedback, edits, corrections, expansion, all welcome. :)sinneed (talk) 03:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

KPS Singh section

There were several terrorist attacks by Sikh militants during the Punjab insurgency that became more violent between 1983 to 1992. Counter-insurgency forces were led by police officer Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (himdelf a Sikh) for, in the words of BBC, "rooting out militancy from the Indian state of Punjab."

That should be covered adequately at his article. Here, the only relationship I can see to the article is that he was the leader, was Sikh, was successful, and there were accusations of HR violations. All that should be well covered in his article, thus I don't have a fact flag after it... the article link is expected to have the detail and be or have the sources. The addition is problematic and I don't understand why it belongs here. Leaving it out. If it is added back, please, 1 edit, typos removed, quote clean if it is needed (and it isn't IMO), with an edit summary. sinneed (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this being repeatedly removed? Is it just collateral damage from the edit war, or is there a problem?

I lost most of this edit and more earlier. I have no idea what I did wrong.  :,(

• *resolved IMO* Bouncing edit one. If no one objects, I am restoring most of it:

The programme on Radio 4 was however criticised as lacking balance , and protests were made by moderate Sikhs such as Indarjit Singh to MP Parmjit Dhandha.

I would drop the names of the protesters and the protest. The criticism is enough, eh?

• I found that this edit is currently "in", and I have changed it somewhat. Hopefully it is better, and if not, the revert button works. ;0) sinneed (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• *resolved IMO* Bouncing edit 2 (yes I see it is poorly written with buzz words and emoting, but... killed?):

The author of this article has been accused of a smear campaign against Ken Livingstone, and in order to smear him has used Mr Singh as a pawn .

I have read the citation (boring boring boring), and see nothing there to do with this article. Is the argument that the paper should not have published the article because the author is disliked and suspected of hating old Kenny? Take that up with the paper, or in a Wiki article about the paper or the author, please. If it is added back here, please explain why it is relevant. And please, rewrite it to say something about this article? Killing it.sinneed (talk) 06:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that this needs to be reworded. We should look for the appropriateness and general acceptance of this information. It feels like Andrew Gilligan is having some sort of score to settle with Ken Livingstone from some time and is out cherry picking information to use against him. This invokes a set of questions. Does that compromise Gilligan's neutrality? Does that cause some conflict of interest issue? Does that make Gilligan's article less reliable on a sensitive issue like this article? We can either let Mr. Gilligan's article content go or add briefly that he is known for having some sort of "war against Ken Livingstone". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 19:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

His neutrality is not a requirement. It is ok if he has a CoI, he is not contributing to Wikipedia. His *ARTICLE* is not reliable, and Wikipedia doesn't care. At all. He may be unable to tell why he is wet when standing in pouring rain. It simply doesn't matter. It is ok if he cherry picks. It does not matter in any way if he is having a war with Ken Livingstone. If you want to write an article about him, it may be a point to bring up. So no, we don't have to let his content go, and I will not unless the *SOURCE* is determined not to be wp:rs. But you know all that. sinneed (talk) 01:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Bouncing edit 3:

Babbar Khalsa, founded by Canadian fundamentalist Sikhs, is on the official lists of terrorist organizations maintained by the European Union, Canada, India, and the United States. Ajaib Singh Bagri, the co-founder of the Babbar Khalsa, told the founding convention of the World Sikh Organization in 1984: "Until we kill 50,000 Hindus, we will not rest." He was also on trial over the Air India bombings Flight 182

• Bouncing edit 4 - why are these 2 being swapped back and forth?

Akhand Kirtani Jatha and Dal Khalsa

And I promise, it is edit warring. It is hard to edit, hard to figure out what you are doing, why you are doing it. All I can tell for sure is that you disagree and seem unable or unwilling to communicate with one another.sinneed (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sineed, I spend some time looking into the edit history of article to find out what is going on and where you lost your text that you mentioned here. Going some edit histories back one can see that here is where editor Satanoid removed the content you are missing. Then another edit followed by editor Satanoid where he replaced Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa". Then I came in and restored the content edited by Satanoid, including both - the section you are missing and his replacing of the Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa". After which, Satanoid again came back and not only once again removed the content that you are missing, but also replaced Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa" again calling it "corrections and cleanup". After this edit from Satanoid, another editor Sikh-history noted it and reverted his deleting of your missing text and also restored back Satanoid's stubborn replacement of Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa". Very soon after this, Satanoid again came back and replaced Akhand Kirtani Jatha with "Dal Khalsa" (once again). He (Satanoid) then followed up by again deleting your missing text. I hope this helps you to understand how you are missing your text. Also note that these are not mere reverts but specific edits from Satanoid, so I guess he can better explain why your information is being continually edited by him. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 05:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not being clear, I fear. I lost my edits because I did something wrong. I just... lost them. They were to the talk page. My bad, no one else's. The key points I typed again. My apologies. sinneed (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war of Dec 20/21 - I lost this edit earlier, sorry.

Please.

I again recommend that if you MUST roll back someone's edit, that you at LEAST come here and say what about the edit was bad. I do understand you are not some other editor's typist, and should not have to type back in the non-problem parts of their edit, and some mangled complex edits simply can't be fixed by a reasonable amount of normal typing, and reverting them in pieces just won't work. But surely you can click the "talk page" button and explain, even if the 20 edits won't fit in the edit summary (and they won't). sinneed (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

List of news stories - prose or out?

This needs to be fleshed out if it is going to stay. This article is not a list of news stories. If anyone cares about these stories, they need to be included in the article as prose and cited, I should think. Unless there is some reason to keep them I will kill them off in a few days or weeks or some such. No great rush, and they can be re-added when someone finds the interest. I will paste them here if I kill them out of the article.

Ack, this was archived. I am killing these today or tomorrow if no one objects, it was here a few days.sinneed (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the list in the external links section, or just the use of news articles as sources? If the former I don't really care, but if the latter I'm not sure if I'd agree with just removing them as a whole. I understand what you might mean, a lot of this seems like as a chronicle instead of an article explaining the phenomenon of Sikh extremism. I wonder if the intense bombardment the article receives to eliminate references to Sikh extremism or suggest that there was nothing extremist or religious about the behavior of some Sikhs forces the article to stick to plain news articles, since any deeper narrative would undoubtedly be challenged by self-declared experts editing Wikipedia. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 07:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC

Moved the list here. It can be turned into prose, or the revert link works. :)

Examples of media coverage of extremist violence:

• Wanted Sikh held over Delhi bombs
• Key witness speaks at Air India trial
• Canadian MP says warnings ignored over Sikh extremists
• 15 Hindus killed in Punjab
• Liberal MP describes beatings, death threats faced by opponents of Sikh extremism
• Sikh Terrorism Enters Politics in Canada

sinneed (talk) 13:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"since any deeper narrative would undoubtedly be challenged by self-declared experts editing Wikipedia" - well just below where I am typing there is a line "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Any deeper narrative as bad as a lot of what has been put into this article will be challenged by me, and I make no claim of being an expert. sinneed (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That list looks like an attempt to prove that "Sikh extremism" exist, probably in an attempt to stop naysayers who insist upon downplaying the prevalence of the said extremism and terrorism. As for the experts, I'm referring to objections made based upon an editor's personal "expert" opinion of the topic, rather than our content guidelines. If something clearly is poor according to our rules, I support its removal. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 19:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the snide remarks. It is a fact that some people will have more expertise on a subject than another. There are no "naysayers" here. Just people trying to get balance.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

We must all understand that any expertise of the editors is irrelevant to Wikipedia. We are all equals here, and have to follow the same rules. We must place the most weight on the views of most reliable sources on a topic, and our personal studied objection to the conclusions of these sources should not interfere. If you think a source is unreliable, that's good to discuss; if you think that there may be an issue of undue weight, that's also good to discuss. We should not, however, object to these sources because we don't agree with their conclusions based upon our own understanding of the subject, and our own conclusions about the substance of the material itself. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 04:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Off Topic, please stop. This is a discussion of the removal of a list.
A baby turkey, no we are not required to place the most weight on the views of the most reliable sources in your opinion. The sources are wp:reliable sources and we may use them, or they are not. Yes, we must avoid wp:undue. Hammering away at us to get us to accept your personal view of what is reliable and what is "most reliable" without any substance is pointless, off topic: if you have source that is being killed and you think it needs to be in, I most respectfully ask that you please make a topic for it. This is not the place for it.
Sikh-history, I am sorry that you choose to interpret the remarks by A baby turkey as snide, please take such discussions to an arena where they belong...and that is not this one.
sinneed (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Large set of edits. Fact-flagging.

I have tried to keep my edits orderly, so that they can be reverted or repaired without horrible difficulty. However, it is a LOT of change, and I *WILL* have made (a) mistake(s). For that I apologize.

I also added some fact-flags. This is in NO WAY intended to be disagreement with what is said or even an opinion that a new source is needed. It may well be that we just need to move a source to cover it, or add a reference to an existing source. But as there is at least a cease-fire in the edit war, I am studying through the article looking for things that are not obviously sourced. Once I have done that, I'll go through again (and where I can I am doing this in one pass) and try to place sources that were wounded in the war more strategically.

Those who are very familiar with the subject may find that I have damaged their meaning. Please either fix that or tell me about it and I will. There was quite a bit of bad or damaged grammar and weak, incorrect or damaged structure. I lightheartedly hope that most of these changes are to the good.

sinneed (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Cherry Picking - template has been deleted.

... so an editor removed it from the article. If there is a replacement template that accomplishes the desired result, it may need to be added. sinneed (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of "political disgrace" text?

( described as number two in the Top 10 Political Disgraces in [[India Today]] magazine.)

The magnitude of this disastrous confrontation seems cheapened by calling it a "political disgrace". At the same time, the relevance of inserting the reference there is lost on me. Does it really belong?sinneed (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No comments after several days, taking it out.sinneed (talk) 06:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it may add a bit more background and information regarding the catalyst for the extremism, i.e. there were mistakes on both sides. It is no big deal if you will to delete it.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

OR - a good example of why this has been an edit war field over and over

I removed ", and such accusation of alignment with Al Qaeda were baseless." - The sad news is that one can't prove a negative. No RS is ever going to say "Our investigations have shown that no Sikh extremist in the UK has aligned with Al-Qaeda." It just isn't going to happen. Please don't do this. You know better. The article already cautions that the program was argued to lack balance.sinneed (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The point I was making is that the references that have been cited as saying Sikhs were aligned or were aligning with Al Qaeeda did not actually say anything like that. Whereas the article actually refuted any such allegations. Again, it is Ok if you want to pull it.--Sikh-history (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I must ask: Why did you not SAY that. Ideally here, before making the change, in this conflict-ridden article. But if that is too much trouble (and it certainly isn't required, it just would have been best)... then in the edit summary: "The source does not say that. It says it found no evidence of a connection." Finally, since you put it AFTER the source, it had no source to cover it. Thus, I moved it here for discussion. My mindreading device is busted. I have to read the Internet instead.sinneed (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

And let me point out that even if the source says it found no evidence of an Al-Queda connection, that would NOT cover "accusation(sic) ... were baseless". Very different.sinneed (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Source problems continue

The lead source (http://books.google.com/books?id=zMgijln_FvMC&pg=PA26&dq=%22sikh+extremism%22&lr=) in the current version of the article, goes from "Sikh Extremism" to "Sikh separatism" to "Sikh terrorism" within 3 lines of text starting from its heading. Then there is with no justification by the author for these terms. This is not a responsible source to justify the lead. Reiterating again - searching keywords and basing articles on them is not a good practice. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not need to justify their conclusions or terms. If you think there is an actual problem with the source with regard to Wikipedia requirements rather than personal objection to the content (WP:RS, for example), feel free to make your case. I was a bit suspicious at first, so I looked into it a bit; while that sort of book isn't really my preference when it comes to these things (too playful or something like that, IMO), it does not seem right to call Dwight Hamilton an unreliable source on terror issues in Canada. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 00:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The sources do not need to justify their conclusions or terms. - huh?--Sikh-history (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What's confusing about this? We have yet to see any reason to consider the source unreliable, and an editor's personal approval or disapproval of the arguments made and terms advanced is irrelevant since Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources themselves. Any attempt to remove material or sources because an editor feels that their arguments were not "responsible" enough lacks validity under Wikipedia rules, and likely compromises NPOV. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A baby turkey, wikipedia is not a collection of Keywords or Terms. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 20:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are getting at; we have many articles that are about terms. With such an extensive reliance on terror among Sikh separatists, there is nothing surprising about numerous reliable sources using descriptive "terms" and presenting information and analysis about the phenomenon. A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A baby turkey, I'm not sure if you are feigning ignorance or you really don't know about the subject of this article? This article in discussion is not about terms, you have been explained earlier elsewhere that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Your understanding of wikipedia policies is fallacious and superficial. The sources (like the one questioned) are not appropriate to justify an article which is not about mere terms. If you have material about separatism I encourage you to add to the article Punjab Insurgency. Creating confusion is not the policy of any encyclopedia --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are wrong in condemning these as "mere" terms. Reliable sources have been able to write extensively on these terms. Citing relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, please explain why this particular source is "not appropriate." Thanks, A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 00:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A baby turkey, stop moving goalposts and prepending words such as "condemning" to what I said. It is clear enough to understand what I meant, unless you choose not to. Don't expect me to be your Wikipedia teacher, you have been long enough on wikipedia to understand what I said in the my first comment under this section. Your edits on Islam related articles clearly show that it is not appropriate for you to feign ignorance like you are doing, unless your understanding of wikipedia policies change when you move from topic to topic. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, what goalposts have been moved? Do you have a valid case (based on Wikipedia rules) against this source yet? That appears to be a consistent request by me, and you still haven't scored a goal. Don't attack the goalie: take a shot! :-D A baby turkey^{[citation needed]} 01:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Roadahead, please stop focusing on A baby turkey (citation needed)'s search style, abilities, and understanding. It borders on wp:personal attack and may be over the line. Whether it is or is not, it is not appropriate for the talk page of an article.
I read your remarks here, and I think I hear you saying you are not impressed with the authors. Great. I care, but Wikipedia does not. This is a widely published book. This does not in any way imply that Wikipedia "beleives" the authors would understand why they were wet if standing in a pouring rain. It merely means we can cite them. Then, we can cite someone who disagrees with them, or argues that they raise gartersnakes in their hats, as long as we keep to wp:RS wp:BLP and the other kagillion Wikipedia guidelines.
Please focus on the content. You have pointed out no problem whatsoever with this source. Oddly, I have had this exact conversation with A baby turkey in the context of giving the most weight to the sources that A baby turkey selects as most reliable. We are not constrained from citing sources that A baby turkey perceives as less reliable. Nor are we constrained from using sources you feel are selected because of key words. Wikipedia doesn't care. *sigh*belated signature sinneed (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed, no that's not my focus at all, you are generalizing my words. Regarding the source, what I said is that the usage of keywords is not justified and we are certainly not a directory of phrases or keywords. The article titles need to justify the content and the meaning they reflect, not just because somebody used the words. --Roadahead ★ 05:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First, I love your new sig. Second, I am very sorry but I don't understand your words regarding the source, since my restatement is not correct. From the response of A baby turkey, I suspect that editor is reading it the same way.
"The article titles need to justify the content and the meaning they reflect"... I am sorry, but I just can't follow that. I don't know that it is needful that I do, but... I can't.
The source *seems* to be an RS, and *seems* to support the content it is tagged to, so it would seem to be a good source... but I am quite ready to be wrong. :) sinneed (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Valid Article?

I just bumped into this page and it was kind of funny and weird. An article saying Sikhs are terrorists? Great objective and balanced article. I can see all the disputes about fact checking. Obviously some Anti Sikh person started it. Last I checked Sikhism formed in India when Muslim invaders were attacking.

Quick Journalism lesson I learned in college; don't make blunt and claims. Say ALLEGED or something. Then again why even start this hate page.Sfvace (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Quick lesson: read. We don't ever say all Sikhs are terrorists, which you seem to think. We say something called Sikh extremism exists and we have plently of secular, unbiased sources to state that. Terrorists come from multiple religious backgrounds, including Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism. And "alleged" is a WP:weasel word, which is against Wikipedia policy. There are facts out there, and we are citing our facts. This has nothing to do with hating any religion or people, it's about facts. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The title "Sikh extremism" stands as unjustified as it was when this whole dispute on article started. Most of the content of the current article is blown out of Punjab Insurgency issue. The talkpage archive here has the information that the article was indeed started by a troll; who has history of anti-Sikh intentions not only wikipedia but also elsewhere on internet forums.--Roadahead ★ 05:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're resorting to an ad hominem argument, my friend. Yes, someone started this article in bad faith, but the people continuing the article have not broken WP:good faith whatsoever. Countless sources that satisfy WP:RS show that phrase "Sikh extremism" does exist, it has a rather consistent meaning. As can be seen from here and above, you have been unable to refute that important, single point, that is the basis of writing any article on Wikipedia. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First, stop calling "My friend" and second, there is no ad hominem in my comment so please don't inflate my words to make them sound inappropriate. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a directory of phrases. Moreover, stop acting like a judge and declare "unable to refute". The process of discussion in still ongoing are you are not an active participant in the discussion at all. --Roadahead ★ 05:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

My concern with the article remains the old one "Should we have articles for 'Christian Extremism' and 'Moslem Extremism' and 'Atheist Extremism', etc? Are not all such articles demeaning towards the groups to which 'Extremism' is attached?" In some sense there are extremists of most every sort. The argument against my concern that I found most persuasive was "Sikh Extremism is clearly Notable."... and words to the effect that it was up to the editors to keep the article from becoming pejorative(spelling?) and to prevent it from violating wp:BLP. If someone did an AfD on this, I would !vote neutral, citing my concern and the +/- as I see it.sinneed (talk) 06:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

...and my concern with the incoherency of the article content still remains. That is - majority of the content of the article that we have now after many-many days of deliberation still belongs to Punjab Insurgency. Other minor isolated events are cherry picked and some of them the identity of the individuals is not even know. None of the sources we have discussed so far have used the word "Sikh extremism" and justified its usage in the content. Again, we are not a directory of phrases and keywords. The article content should describe what its title says and if we don't have enough to justify the title and we go out of our way to justify the article - we become guilty of "I like it". The argument that other similar articles on other faiths exists so we need this one makes one sound like an apologist so we should not even be using that argument. --Roadahead ★ 15:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• "None of the sources we have discussed so far have used the word "Sikh extremism" and justified its usage in the content." - but they don't have to. They simply have to be wp:RS and relevant.
• "The argument that other similar articles on other faiths exists so we need this one makes one sound like an apologist so we should not even be using that argument." - I haven't heard that argument in a while. If I hear it I will use my standard response "Just because wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff."
• On the incoherence, I fear I have done all I think I can... more knowledgeable editors will have to put in content.sinneed (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Structure

Ok, the current structure was "extremism in India", "extremism in the UK", "extremism in North America" and a catchall area that User:Satanoid removed the heading for here. I instead propose a single chronology of the extremist activity, with subheadings to separate. We need to stay away from the "every single activity involving Sikhs" pattern and be more specific. Any disagreements about the general structure? Individual events should be discussed in new separate sections here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This would also make it easier to show mainstream Sikh support or condemnation for individual events. I like it. sinneed (talk) 18:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think he restarted Sikh terrorism again, despite it being got rid of onece before http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh_terrorism. --Sikh-history (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's clear what he was doing. I've made it into a redirect and blocked him for his other conduct as well. He knows full well what he shouldn't be doing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I've felt the same about Satanoid from his choice of insults, topics and edits and then feigning ignorance that this not someone who does not honestly understand the insulting acts, nonconstructive edits, and wikipedia policies but someone who has experience of editing earlier and is flaming deliberately out of some strong feelings. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 21:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)