Talk:Sikh religious extremism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vandalism and proposed merges

You will be aware of the recent events in Austria taken from http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/45973902.html does not state "ARMED MEN" it states Sikh Fundamentalists, yet this does not have anything to do with Khalistan and is subject of Sikh Extremism, I feel the POV orientated Extremist editors will, as has done previously deny this among many other events by implicating that the events in Austria did not happen! Morbid Fairy (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The massive coverage of the attack has many different versions. There are many sources. Many cited. All agree that there were armed men. Please... make your edits, do not make massive changes to change 2 words.- sinneed (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rama Nand contains a greatly expanded version of the text, giving a few different versions. Instead of damaging the article with a wp:rollback, please, please, make your edit in detail.- sinneed (talk) 05:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

"Press reports indicate variously that there were 5 or 6 attackers, carrying knives and guns or knives and a gun, and described the attackers as "fundamentalist Sikhs"[2] or "young Sikh men"[3] or "turbaned Sikhs"[4][5] or "fundamentalist Jat Sikhs.""

Perhaps... "armed Sikh men"? all seemed to agree on that?- sinneed (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

In the wild hope of avoiding continued wp:vandalism to change 2 words, I have proposed 3 new ones. "armed Sikh men". Any objections?- sinneed (talk) 05:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting this article cannot even distinguish between Ravidasi Hindu's and Ravidasi Sikh's. Seems to be some very confused journalism around. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 08:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrative posts

I put this in the changes line but I'll add here too:

Ref of Zail Singh given because old reference(s) did not state adequately that there was actual categorical bias against sikhs in administrative posts

In other words, where it states..."By February 1997, a UN report appears to have found that Sikhs had religious freedom, but that there were reports of discriminatory practices in public administration." does not suffice as being an effort against public posts, and the addition of information regarding Zail Singh and Manmohan Singh is a follow on to the information regarding the UN report stated above.

Leave them till we get more consesus. Thanks--Sikh-history (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• "does not suffice as being an effort against public posts" - What is your point? The reader can draw the reader's own conclusions. The statement remains in the wp:RS, as I see it. If you find a wp:RS that says there was no bias, perhaps you should add it (wp:BALANCE) with content that it supports, or not, as you choose.- sinneed (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• "the addition of information regarding Zail Singh and Manmohan Singh is a follow on to the information regarding the UN report stated above" - The unsourced addition needs a source. And... how are these related? I don't object strongly but... what do they have to do with hiring in public service? These answers belong here in the talk page, I should think.- sinneed (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination

"In 1991, some militant groups claimed that they..."

vs.

"In 1991, Sikh separatists claimed that Sikh..."

Source says

"Many Sikhs argue that India has failed to give Punjab state equal treatment in national investment, although the state has India's highest per capita income. Many of them also maintain that Sikh religious rights have been neglected or repressed."

Changing the article from "Sikh separatists" to "The New York Times reported in 1991 that many Sikhs claimed that Sikhs...". The "many" may need quotes in the article. Just tying the source to it directly for now.- sinneed (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. The *QUOTE* was already in the body of the article, and it was marked "no source". This makes it very difficult to wp:AGF. Clearly,the quote did NOT say "Sikh militants" It says "many Sikhs".- sinneed (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times reported in 1991, it that reported that "many" Sikhs claimed Sikhs were being discriminated against, and that the Punjab region was not treated equally with other regions of India. By February 1997, a UN report appears to have found that Sikhs had religious freedom, but that there were reports of discriminatory practices in public administration. Zail Singh was the 7th President of India. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India in 2009, is the 1st Sikh to hold that office.

• Above block was posted anonymously. Anon poster: Are you proposing that for this section? You are not being clear enough for me, sorry.

• Wrong section for:

"When a top Indian Envoy was abducted in Romania and the Indian Ambassador to Romania was shot and wounded by armed Sikh men two months earlier, which"

and

It also reported that "Sikh militants gunning down the families and relatives of police officers. Virtually every day there are reports of 20 or more people killed by the security forces or militants in Punjab state"

• If it is not included in the events areas, it should be. But I am fairly sure it is. You might read the article.- sinneed (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• It is *NOT* listed in this article, and it should be. It may have been lost in one of the previous edit wars. I'll try to hunt it down and re-add it, if no other editor does.- sinneed (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Added it in the 1990s subsection. Also made sure the attempted assassination of Ribeiro is covered.- sinneed (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

===Sikhs in India's independence movement===

• whats going on guys?, assasination attempt on Julio Francis Ribeiro was part of Khalistan movement. Why here ?... Julio Francis Ribeiro had served in Punjab as its DGP, he was famous for his (alleged) 'bullet for bullet' policy, Khalistan movement people tried to assassinate him twice because of the POLITICAL differences. He represented India and they represented Khalistan. This case was similar to Udham Singh, who started following Michael O'Dwyer from India and finally assassinated him in UK because of his involvement in the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre. We do not call Udham Singh an extremist then why double standards for these Sikhs ? --99.51.223.161 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

:::::* Neither this note, nor the addition to the article, seem to make any sense to me. I have moved the new section to the bottom of the article. It is unrelated to the content there. It won't stay long unless you can relate it to the article at hand.- sinneed (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• How was witnessing a massacre an extremist act? How is being revered as a hero an extremist act? How is having a statue erected in one's honor an extremist act? - sinneed (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I *think* I see what you are trying to say. Yes, if Udham Singh was pursuing a Sikh agenda in murdering Michael O'Dwyer that would indeed be Sikh extremist activity. Is that the case? Why not say so instead of making these very strange edits that seem to have no relation to the article? This appears to be wp:disruptive editing in order to make the wp:POINT that you don't approve of the acts being listed as extremism.- sinneed (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

new section started below- sinneed (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

President and Prime Minister

"Zail Singh was the 7th President of India[clarification needed] and Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India in 2009, is the 1st Sikh to hold that office.[20]"
It finally ocurred to me that individuals are adding this as a refutation of discrimination. Unless there is a wp:RS saying something to that effect, this is not useful. It does explain why someone kept merging the sentences and adding "but...". Something like "Critics of the claims of discrimination note that..." or some such might be a good bit more effective. Is this the intent? If so, saying so would let me kill the clarify flag. Without a wp:RS to show the relationship, it seems clear to me this is not related.- sinneed (talk) 03:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I killed a {{where}} flag

I see it in the complex edit... it wasn't mentioned in the wp:edit summary. I apologize for that oversight.

If the adding editor would be so kind as to explain what it means, that would be excellent. I will restore the flag as well, but I have no idea what is being flagged.- sinneed (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dropped flag, no response.- sinneed (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge into Khalistan Article?

I think K.Khokhar additions have been useful in that this article really needs to be under the Khalistan heading. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks but unless you can show that every single act of 'extremism' was related to 'Khalistan' that would not be accurate. Khokhar (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thus, my discussion of putting only the separatist bulk under Khalistan movement. There are clearly the same kinds of internecine squabbles seen in many other religious groups. I would oppose a straight merge... there is enough other extremism for a short article. This one has strong appeal because of its name... much sexier than Khalistan movement.- sinneed (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Why this wp:fork article was even allowed when Khalistan movement was already there ? Also, Sikhs participation in the Indian freedom struggle was huge. It can also be called some sort of extremism because Sikhs are freedom lovers and they always did 'EXTREME' acts for this freedom. So lets bring Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh, Indian National Army, Gaddar and hundereds of other Indian freedom movement related articles, where Sikhs did extreme acts, into the scope of this article. There can NOT be two standards.... Either merge it with Khalistan movement or either add all Sikh acts from Indian freedom struggle into this article. NO INSULT to such a religion ... --99.51.223.161 (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

August new addition

This would be strongly wp:POV, and would need thorough support in the body, and I am very dubious that it would make it into the lead.

and terrorism by individuals or organisations using religion for political aims.

I oppose it in the lead, and it would need much more neutral presentation even in the body.- sinneed (talk) 05:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider, for example, that you could simply swap "religion for political aims" with "politics for religious aims". Both would be source-able... and specious. People do things for many reasons. The "terrorism" thing is question-begging and pejorative. Please see the WP guidance on the use of "terrorism" and "terrorist". (which for the life of me I can't find right now... Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism had some good stuff.- sinneed (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I placed this (flagged) within the history of Sikh separatism section. It needs work IMO to be included. I oppose its inclusion even in the perhaps less POVish form.

Ahh yes Sineed I concur. There was a major debate on this and the consensus was that it was POV. Thanks --Sikh-History 14:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible Problems with WP:NPOV and WP:OWN and proposition of Article renaming

I see my recent additions were moved and the main section reverted to the version before my edits, all my edits were sourced so there is no question of who is making the cliams and I believe they helped improve the main discription section and we should really leave it to the reader to decide as all the sources were from respected internation bodies like CBC news for the addition of 'terrorim', seeing as there additions were moved from the main heading where they really should be so as to give the reader the insight and understanding required; I feel there is a problem of WP:SYNTH, as well as WP:NPOV not being considered. I think this might be due to the editors making the changes noted and generally taking part in this article being members of the Sikh community so not wanting to put forward a negative view in a prominent/lead section. I also note that throughout the article references are made to 'terrorism' and are well sourced from leading news agencies as well as the leading organisations mentioned in later sections most being referred to as 'militant organisations' where as international organisations refer to them as 'terrorist organisations' such as the US's official view on the 'Khalistan Commando Force' here [1], even the source currently used "Terrorism in context By Martha Crenshaw" lists them all as terrorist groups [2] and the official canadain position, according to the united nations, on the International Sikh Youth Federation also lists them as a terrorist organisation[3], wiki's own list seems to indicate this also [4].

This brings me to my proposition, in light of the above and all other similar articles, I feel this article should be renamed to Sikh Terrorism, this would put it in line with similar articles like Jewish terrorism, Christian terrorism and Islamic terrorism as it deals with largely similar issues, this view is in fact supported by, as noted, leading international and Nnational Indian bodies as well as leading publicaions such as 'Terrorist Group Profiles' [5]and "Meeting the challenges of global terrorism: prevention, control, and recovery By Dilip K. Das, Peter C. Kratcoski2 [6] refers to 'Sikh terrorim' as well as "Encyclopedia of diasporas: immigrant and refugee cultures around ..., Volume 1 By Melvin Ember" [7]. Also the view of the Sikh religion being used by these organisations to promote terrorism, which has been marked as 'dubious' in the article is supported by "Terrorist Group Profiles" [8], and by "Fundamentalisms observed By Martin E. Marty, R. Scott Appleby" [9] and even the main source used in the article "Terrorism in context By Martha Crenshaw" [10].

In light of the above I feel the article renaming and the moved content being reinstated is justified but due to the problems also mentioned I think I may not get the desired co-operation so may consult a third opinion or put this article up for review. Khokhar (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• wp:AGF - This kind of behaviour makes reaching consensus difficult. Please focus on the content, not the editors. I encourage you to study the considered multi-way split and refocusing above, and make alternative proposals, without the nastiness.
• The content has stayed in the article, flagged, briefly, to allow time for it to be reworked into a neutral or more neutral form. Unless that is done, I have confidence it will not stay.- sinneed (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Just because wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff. I would say that once you have removed the nastiness and we have discussed this a bit, an wp:RfC about what to do with the article might be a great idea. I just haven't cared enough to write it up... it is a lot of work with a complex set of issues as this article addresses.
• The content does not belong in the lead at this: wp:LEAD the lead is based on the article, and should summarize its content, and this is not (well) handled in the body. Before my edit it was not there at all. Also, the content fails wp:NPOV, making some pretty wild claims.

There were certainly terrorists who "joined the Khalistan cause" because they wanted to achieve some other goal, there were surely some who were just angry and the cause let them express that, there were surely some who wanted personal power, there were surely some who wanted wealth... one in particular was reviled in bits of the press as nothing more than a bank robber and kidnapper who abused the Khalistan movement to gain public support for his thievery. This is all without doubt true of every movement, whether peaceful, militant, or openly terrorist.

• I look forward to your content-focussed discussion, without nastiness, to your balanced additions to the article, and eventually to your (or someone's) RfC about how to move/split/leave here this article. We already have a ruling from an admin that creating Sikh terrorism as a wp:POV fork of this one is not acceptable.- sinneed (talk)

Extremists Vs Heroes

How can we call Khalistan movement related acts as extremism and Indian independence movement related acts as heroism. What creterion is being used? We need to either merge it into Khalistan movement or we should bring all Indian independence movement related Sikh's extreme acts into this article. Thats how it will be balanced. We msut be neutral wp:npov--99.51.223.161 (talk) 06:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikhs in India's independence movement

• whats going on guys?, assasination attempt on Julio Francis Ribeiro was part of Khalistan movement. Why here ?... Julio Francis Ribeiro had served in Punjab as its DGP, he was famous for his (alleged) 'bullet for bullet' policy, Khalistan movement people tried to assassinate him twice because of the POLITICAL differences. He represented India and they represented Khalistan. This case was similar to Udham Singh, who started following Michael O'Dwyer from India and finally assassinated him in UK because of his involvement in the Jallianwalla Bagh Massacre. We do not call Udham Singh an extremist then why double standards for these Sikhs ? --99.51.223.161 (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Neither this note, nor the addition to the article, seem to make any sense to me. I have moved the new section to the bottom of the article. It is unrelated to the content there. It won't stay long unless you can relate it to the article at hand.- sinneed (talk) 06:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• How was witnessing a massacre an extremist act? How is being revered as a hero an extremist act? How is having a statue erected in one's honor an extremist act? - sinneed (talk) 06:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I *think* I see what you are trying to say. Yes, if Udham Singh was pursuing a Sikh agenda in murdering Michael O'Dwyer that would indeed be Sikh extremist activity. Is that the case? Why not say so instead of making these very strange edits that seem to have no relation to the article? This appears to be wp:disruptive editing in order to make the wp:POINT that you don't approve of the acts being listed as extremism.- sinneed (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• I second the opinion by Sinned... 08:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dear editor Sinneed, I do not understand that why do we need several articles on Khalistan movement. Is it because the name Sikh extremism might look more sexy to anti-sikhs?. We are here to spread knowledge and *NOT* hate. Sikhs in Indian independence movement were also called terrorists and extremists, but it appears that you consider them *heroes*. Why such *hate* and wp:pov violations while writing about Khalistan movement?--99.51.223.161 (talk) 07:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We may have stirred a hornets nest. This is the problem with articles like this, when they may various links to combine various acts. "Sikh Extremism" could legitimately be said to be acts of violence, as in Udham Singh (who was described as an extremist), to pursue goals of an independent India. Why I have always stated this article should be under the canvass of Khalistan. We are talking about specific acts of extremism in this article, and they can ALL be traced back to the Khalistan movement, but Udham Singh and Bhaghat Singh cannot, but they are Sikh Extremists, by the definition of this article. The Ghaddhar movemnt too, was an extremist movement (which had many Sikhs). Regards--Sikh-History 09:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Extremist activity" - Great. You folk have fun with it. But please, if this is going to be under the "Extremist activity" section, could it focus on the extremist activity? Statues are most certainly not extremist activity, nor is being raised in an orphanage. Is there ANY argument why these belong here?- sinneed (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(Offtopic) - "Dear editor Sinneed, I do not understand that why do we need several articles on Khalistan movement" - Nor do I. If you read above, you may be able to determine that for yourself. Or not. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. I had done some of the foundation work, copying the various militant groups' content to their respective articles, so that if we could reach consensus to remove them here, we could do so. However there was *INTENSE* resistance from editors, who stated that they would simply recreated Sikh terrorism (and one did so, more than once). Please focus on the content, not the editors.- sinneed (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Its a bit hypocritical to include the above section when for ages many like Sinneed were arguing that Sikh Extremism was exclusively to do with Khalistan and Khalistani related terrorism Heliosphere (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Dropping and proposed to drop or move

• Ajmere Singh - No extremist acts listed. Propose to drop.
• Shahid Bhagad Singh - Dropping the hero worship now. Propose to drop it all... no extremist acts listed.

Was:

Shahid Bhagat Singh, hero of Indian independence struggle, a Sikh by religion, was called an extremist by Mahatama Gandhi. Bhagat Singh's 18 foot bronze statue stand tall next to Mahatama Gandhi inside Parliament of India now.

• Udham Singh - Dropping the hero worship now.

Was:

Udham Singh,described as an "extremist revolutionary", , of Sikh background, was raised in a Khalsa Orphanage and who had witnessed Jallianwala Bagh massacre followed Michael O'Dwyer, the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab at the time of massacre, to the United Kingdom and gunned him down in London on April 1st 1940. Although known today as an Indian freedom fighter (of Sikh background), he was known at the time (by authorities) as an extremist OR extremist revolutionary and a terrorist. He was hanged in UK, and his ashes were returned to India in 1974 to a martyr's reception. His ashes were recieved by Shankar Dayal Sharma and Zail Singh who later-on became presidents of India.

• I was able to make the cuts of the off-topic content (the section is about extremist activity, not statues and being raised in an orphanage), without losing any of the sources. Restructured and tightened. The remaining 2 paras that do not involve extremist activity I will cut in the next few days if they are not moved to some section where they are relevant or have some extremist activity with wp:RS added.

Concerns? Additions? Ideas? - sinneed (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• No work to add extremist activity and no comments, dropped.- sinneed (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

*We must add that how India declared a Sikh extremist Bhagat Singh a hero and installed his statue next to Mahatama Gandhi inside Parliament of India and how the same country India murdered hundereds of thousands of Sikhs and even their little children when they tried to get independence from India. It will clear out Sikh extremism further.

*Since wikipedia editors might not be able to (and can not) work 100% of their (day and night) time on wikipedia so I need some wikipedia policy stating that 'requested information must be added within that many hours ' or text will be deleted. --98.207.210.210 (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

*There is no rush. The content may be added whenever anyone has the time and interest to add relevant, sourced content, and take part in the discussion if there are objections. In the meantime, there are no extremist activities given there, and the content is, therefore, not relevant to that section.- sinneed (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC) -- corrections... sorry. - sinneed (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I still see no argument that this contains content related to Sikh extremism. It seems to be attempting to make the wp:POINT that sometimes extremists are heroes. Since this article is not a debate about whether or not extremists are or may be or may become heroic, I don't see this as an argument for keeping the content. I am going to, again, move this out of the "extremist activity" section, since it does not contain any, and leave it in the article a bit to see if anyone has any interest in showing relevance to the "Sikh extremism" article.- sinneed (talk) 10:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sineed, you the refrences and British journals from thetime. Ajmere Singh, Bhaghat Singh, Udham Singh, Kartar Singh Sarabha, Ghadrites etc etc were all described by British authorities as extremist Sikhs or extremist Sikh Movements. The articles are there, you just need to read through them. The Ghadrites were not as extreme until the Sikhs came in with their extreme beliefs i.e. kill all Englishman etc. We have a choice, under Sikh Extremism, we either include all Sikh Extremist acts (and these were no doubt, under the guise of Indian Indpendence) or we lift this stuff to the Khlistan, and delete the article. Thanks--Sikh-History 10:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What we do need to drop is any propaganda nonsense i.e. Gandhi's statue etc. Just state they were Sikh, extremists and described as such. Thanks --Sikh-History 10:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The articles are there, you just need to read through them." - not unless they are cited as sources to some content in the article.
• "What we do need to drop is any propaganda nonsense i.e. Gandhi's statue etc. Just state they were Sikh, extremists and described as such." - OK, so... we create a section titled "People who have been called extremists who are Sikh" and list them and who said it? Why?- sinneed (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Any objections to dropping the again-anon-added content about Bhagat Singh being called an extremist?- sinneed (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole article is a joke!!!

Nothing to do with Sikh Terrorism but an attempt by terrorist apologist editors (who claim to be 'Historians') self appointed obviously, trying to include info about human right violations doh as if...?? And the freedom movement during British Colonialism, hell why not include

this:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1207866/BBC-race-row-Sikh-listeners-threaten-Muslim-radio-presenter-denigrated-religious-symbol.html?ITO=1490

Include it otherwise I will

"The BBC was forced to remove a show from its website after Muslim presenter Adil Ray received threats from Sikhs who said he had denigrated one of their religious symbols"

Heliosphere (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger into Khalistan Movement

I do not think that merger into Khalistan movement would be appropriate as what human rights violations occurred in the almost 2 decades in Punjab was not a part of Khalistan. I lived in Punjab during those times and killing of hindus was a norm.

The recent events in this article only signify the extremism of Sikhs. There is an article of 1984 anti sikh riots and that is a legitimate article and what happened there was wrong but that does not rationalize what happened in Punjab to hindus.-- 21:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Khalistan Movement began in the l o b a l-s e c u r i t y.suite101.com/article.cfm/khalistan 1970's. The Killing of Hindu's was despicable, but it was not only killing of Hindu's (as many Killed were Sikh or quasi-Sikh [Hindu's who believed in Sikhism]). The targetting was of Congress supporters which in turnn was kicked off by what Sanjay Gandhi did. My view this is all part of Khalistan, or you include all aspects of Sikh extremism. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

In Khalistan movement, killings of Sikhs and Hindus was a sad part. India killed hundereds of thousands of sikhs in fake encounters, raped girls, destroyed villages, secretely cremated thousands of dead bodies while declaring them un-identified.. basically India didn't want to show the horrific state (torture marks/pulled eyes/nails, torn tummies, torn bodies... and so on..) of Sikh's dead bodies whom it had murdered in its interrogation centeres. Similarly Khalistan movement people attacked Indian security forces, pro-India civilians and a so on..... No one knows who actually murdered the Hindu civilians... Government (to discredit saparatist Khalistan movement at the world level) or Khalistani organizations (to suppress their opponents). Why to insult the whole religion with this kind of articles. Remember, if someone want to insult Sikhs then he/she will end up insulting Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh, Gadar party, Indian National Army and so on.... I hope we all know that Sikh's casualities in Indian Independence movement were close to 85% (out of overall Indian casualities). So we might end up insulting all of them Because they were also called extremists at one stage. Choice is ours ..--144.160.130.16 (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

We have Human Rights in India article, any human rights violations should go out there. Rest of the article should go to Khalistan movement and its related organizations. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear above IP, I think you misunderstand. I find the Khalistan movement, what it stands for and what it did despicable, and a blot on Sikhism, however, wikipedia is not about my views, but about facts. Best Wishes--Sikh-History 21:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I was replying to issues/questions placed by User: Mittal.fdk and not User: Sikh-history. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

New addition for consideration

Other sources also mention that Punjab Police had arrested Talwinder Singh Parmar, he was tortured afterwards and finally punjab police murdered him in a fake police encounter.

This was added anonymously this morning. This seems only loosely related to the topic, and both the individual and the organization have their own articles. Since there were hundreds of thousands of murders and at least thousands of deaths in police custody (which has its own article and coverage in others), I will object to including them here.- sinneed (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have nticed what is happening with the article recently. We need following:

• How some of the Sikh ectremists were treated. e.g. Bhagat Singh, Udham Singh and other Sikhs who fought for India's independence........ 'that how India erected the statues of these extremists after their deaths... and how it declared them heroes....
• Talwinder Singh Parmar and others.... that how India killed anti-India Sikh extremists and even their innocent little children when the same Sikhs demanded for their own independence.
• We must add Indian National Army under Sikh terrorist/militant organizations because it was established by Sikhs....
• We must add Gadar Party under Sikh terrorist/militant organizations because of the Sikhs contribution into its formation...
• We must search for other Sikh organizations who did extremist acts to get freedom from British.... --98.207.210.210 (talk) 06:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Restored a dubious source.

The Jamestown Foundation was cited as a source for the repeated unexplained removal of Religious terrorism in the lead. If this is a wp:Reliable source, the article would contain useful information. It's article here at WP is sharply slanted against it, with some very negative sources. However, I am dubious of the article, as I do see it and its researchers used as a source in the general press.

I am quite dubious because the article claims that "huge numbers" of "Khalistan army" "operatives" are waiting in bunkers in Pakistan, under the command of the Pakistan ISI S, to cross into India by "river routes" to commit widespread acts of terrorism in support of the formation of Khalistan. Since at least January. Dubious.- sinneed (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ajmere Singh

With him it was the start of the Sikh leadership and more extremist form of the Ghadar Movement. Hence why he has been included. Thanks --Sikh-History 08:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't have an article, and no notability is shown.- sinneed (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess he needs an article :p. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content.

"(Checked sourses and there are no references of Namdhari sect being terrorist extremists" was given as an edit summary here

Since no one has claimed these were "extremist terrorists", and since such would not be required for it to be included, this seems not to provide an explanation. What Wikipedia guideline would allow this sourced and seemingly-relevant content to be removed without wp:consensus. If I have missed the discussion about this contested change, please provide it.- Sinneed 21:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to restoring the deleted content? Any at all?

Any objections to dropping the apparently unsourced bits? I don't even want to bring them back with a CN flag.- Sinneed 03:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Content was restored entire. I added CN flags on a couple of unsourced bits, as there is some sort of challenge.- Sinneed 05:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The links point to "The Asiatic review, Volume 15" There is no internet URL no ISBN ref and Google returns nothing, the reference is at best non-existent and is probably politically motivated usual POV - if you goto the Namdhari article, they are not described as 'extremist' unlike others who are Heliosphere (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Several links here to Kuka and extremist. Kuka is a nickname of Namdhari's. Guess you didn't look hard enough Satanoid/Morbidfairy/Analtap/Heliospere. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The links point to "The Asiatic review, Volume 15" There is no internet URL no ISBN ref and Google returns nothing, the reference is at best non-existent and is probably politically motivated usual POV - if you goto the Namdhari article, they are not described as 'extremist' unlike others who are Heliosphere (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

...any idiot can make anyone they dislike look like some extremist if they associate words and google them.....They are not associated with Sikh terrorism just because a leader who heads a task force is described by an anonymous that they are 'extremist' Heliosphere (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Any idiot? :) --Sikh-History 08:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't edit because of edit war.

Went to add better wording and source, and the revert war has kicked in.

• Please stop now.
• Please flag or challenge here one another's work instead of removing it.
• Please address flags instead of killing them, or challenge them here.

- Sinneed 14:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Indian National Army

The Azad Hind Fauj (Indian National Army) was formed by Mohan Singh Deb to free India from British rule, and fought in Southeast Asia, with support from Japan, during WWII.

Coatrack

"it appears that offtopic flag was added first and someone did some extra work and added more information alongwith reference" - I can't agree. IIRC, the content was removed, then new content added.
Small matter, it doesn't belong. It, like Heliosphere's additions, is a wp:coatrack problem. Eventually, hopefully this will become tiresome and the unrelated content can be deleted.- Sinneed 02:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

To expand... using this article as a coatrack on which to hang everything extreme ever done by a Sikh, positive or negative, is a Bad Thing^TM. I am not going to edit war over it. But this really isn't acceptable.- Sinneed 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indian Independence Movement and INA

Why are these off topic? Then is not the Behzti incident off topic? or several other topic there? Sikh Extremism has its origins in many places. If there are cited references there, then it cannot be off topic. Read the reference's before adding such tags. Sikhs in the Indian Independence were described as extremists. That is clear. The INA was described exactly like the IRA, by the British. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are these off topic? - *points at the section immediately above* Please join the discussion.

"If there are cited references there, then it cannot be off topic" - False. If I put the words to some song about hating Sikhs into the article, and cite it properly, that is still off topic, even though such would be "extremist" and involve Sikhs. wp:coatrack can be used either as a wp:POINTed editing technique to protest against or obscure the subject of an article, or as an excuse to put in nastiness, that is somehow vaguely related, exactly as was done many times here before.- Sinneed 13:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, hold on. You are using totally wrong analogy's here. The Topic is "Sikh Extremism", and not Sikh Extremism and the Khalistan Movement. Another editor has seen fit to include any act of violence/protest/or mild irritation by Sikhs as Sikh Extremism. Why cannot cited references be used to show that Sikh Extremism was part of the Indian Independence Movement? Thanks --Sikh-History 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• And Voila. wp:POINT editing. Instead of further damaging the article to hammer home your point, please consider objecting here, citing appropriate WP rules, guidelines, or essays, to back up your argument that content is off-topic.- Sinneed 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with --User:Sikh-history. Article name is not Sikh extremism and Khalistan movement. It is Sikh extremism. Khalistan movement part is overshadowing the article, we need to do huge search on Indian independence movement and Sikh conflicts with Mughal rulers. We also need to add little bit information about human rights violations which forced Sikhs to do extreme acts and we also need to add little bit information about the outcome of their extreme acts. --144.160.130.16 (talk) 18:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NO Voila. No Point. The problem is in the title. Sikh extremism is not a new phenomenon. It was prevalent in the struggle of the Sikhs against Mughal Rule and the tyrannical Hindu Hill Raja's (but was described as Sikh Militancy). The British first coined the term "Sikh Extremist" or "Sikh Extremists", with the Kuka/Namdhari Movement. They then used the term to describe members of the "Indian Independence Movement", including the Ghardharites. The leader on the Indian National Army (Mohan Singh Deb, although he had Hindu accomplice, who were described as "Hindu Extremists") was described as a "Sikh Extremist" too. If anyone has been trying to make wp:POINT it has been Satanoid/Morbid Fairy/Heliosphere/Analtap, but it has spectacularly backfired. You will note I could have included Sikh Extrmist behaviour and the Indian Independence Movement some time ago, but I did, not, because I would have had EXACTLY the things being said you are saying being said about me. NOw, hovewever, another editor has added them, I will ensure everything I can to ensure these edits stay (provided they are backed with reliable source). As we say in England, you are Barking up the wrong tree. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Good work User:Sikh-History, I agree with you and other editors that Sikh's extreme acts from Indian independence movement and previous Mughul period etc should be part of this article otherwise it will stay wp:pov pushing/biased article.--170.35.208.22 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I think the article should follow the following structure:

1. Definition of Sikh Extremism, including origins (this may include struggle against Mughal/Hindu Hill Raja's, British, and Khaliistani's)
2. History of Sikh Extremism
3. Incidents that have been attributed to Sikh Extremism
4. Personalities associated with Sikh Extremism or Sikhs described as Extremist. Extremist belief in this instance could be religious/political/idealogical. Some Sikh extremists were actually inspired by "Communist" revolutionary tactics.

This is the only way I can see this being a stand alone article, otherwise, it may as well be Sikh Extremism and Khalistan, or merged in to Khalistan.thanks --Sikh-History 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1, 2, 3 - we had these (weakly)...- Sinneed 15:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• 4 - everyone ever described as an extremist who happened to be Sikh? Yikes, the thing will be a giant book. Either the individuals will be notable and have their own articles, perhaps with a SHORT bit here if they were not just Sikh and extreme but did things related to "Sikh extremism", or they won't be and should have no mention unless part of some larger event that gets a SHORT bit here.- Sinneed 15:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• The bits in the article that belong in WP would need to be proposed to be moved to new homes. I suspect strongly that this will result in strong resistance.- Sinneed 15:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• History: I will include the extremist acts that are related to Sikhism, such as the violence at the Behzti protest, the attack in the Austrian temple, the occupation of the Golden temple... all very notable events revolving around Sikhism, and quite clearly not accepted by mainstream Sikhs. I will also include in the history (here or in another article) of the extremist organizations.- Sinneed 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• History: “I will include the extremist acts that are related to Sikhism, “ – please clarify this? Related to Sikhism? Sikhism itself does not advocate extremism or extremist acts, but part and parcel of the Sikh faith is “when all other means fail, it is necessary to draw the sword”. So would this be construed as extremism. If this is then the entire faith of Sikhism is an Extreme faith.
• ”clearly not accepted by mainstream Sikhs. “ – drawing the sword is acceptable to mainstream Sikhs. It is part and parcel of the faith.
• The test should be whether other sources have viewed Sikhs as commiting extremist acts. These have notably occurred:

1. Mughal Era – where extreme acts were undertaken by Sikhs against the authorities
2. British era – where extreme acts were again undertaken by the authorities.
3. Post Colonial Era – where Sikhs undertook extreme acts against the authorities.

Proposal

Stop adding any act not attributed to "Sikh extremism" rather than any extreme act by or to a person who happens or claims or is claimed to be Sikh. A group of Sikhs doing extreme things are indeed "Sikh extremists", and if one wants to edit in a wp:POINT fashion, one can indeed include the organization and its acts in the article, regardless of whether it is related to their Sikhism or not.- - Sinneed 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The article would then become part of the Khalistan Movement, it should be retitled, Sikh Extremism and the Khalistan Movement, and acts should be attributed to that? Thanks--Sikh-History 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"The article would then become part of the Khalistan Movement" - No.

"it should be retitled, Sikh Extremism and the Khalistan Movement, and acts should be attributed to that? " - No.

Perhaps a multi-way merge, as discussed briefly above. But I forsee great suffering in the attempt, and certainly am not going to pursue it.- Sinneed 02:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Haha "I forsee great suffering in the attempt", I did not realise you were a Jedi too? Regards --Sikh-History 09:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)--Sikh-History 14:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic being flagged that covers no content

A flag has been placed twice that covers no content. Please do not restore it. If the flag is to cover the text above it, it needs to be placed above the text. If it is to cover text in some other section, it needs to be placed in the other section, with an explanation. This article is ridiculously overflagged and flags added without an explanation will look like more wp:POINT editing. - Sinneed 18:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive overflagging with Offtopic

I have removed each of the offtopic flags. I will not war over this, but I respectfully request that these be left out, and each objection aired here. Certainly, any editor is free to flag the article madly, but it will only accomplish making the article ugly, as far as I can see.- Sinneed 05:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed, just once, an offtopic flag. Please join the discussion.- Sinneed 17:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

At least two editors are editing in this effort, but only 1 is discussing. Restored flags I had removed to encourage discussion.- Sinneed 20:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I am going to delete all the currently offtopic-flagged content in a few days. No telling what will be tagged before then, so I cannot speak to that.- Sinneed 20:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No objections. Killing them all tomorrow, if there are still none.- Sinneed 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, nevermind. Eventually, perhaps an interested editor will join the discussion. In the meantime, the article can just be uglied-up.- Sinneed 04:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment, no work, killing all the flags but the neutrality. - Sinneed 16:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Longer time line, historical approach?

You know there was a version of this article that I found interesting that took a much longer historical perspective. In that version of the article it traced Sikh resistance which sometimes employed violence, at the very least as a last resort, back if I remember correctly at least to the start of the British rule in India, and even back to the history of Sikhs fighting oppression and the cast system before that, but I can't really remember all the details. Now it seems that the article has lost its centuries long historical perspective, and seems to focus only on recent events. At the time of my first reading of the article I seem to remember thinking the old saying that every revolution devours its own children. So from time to time, as a new system of rulers overthrew the old, they were at first grateful to the Sikhs, for helping them to gain power, but then in turn the Sikh way of thinking started to threaten the new bosses the fighting started all over again, just like in that song by the Who. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". I don't know if this is my own unique historical observation, and would count as original research, but it seemed so obvious that a good source some place could be found for this sort of interpretation? Anyway, I would favor an article which took a longer historical point of view.130.86.85.158 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Synthesis

"Religious terrorism... the Khalistan movement from Indian rule." is sourced to "A companion to postcolonial studies By Henry Schwarz, Sangeeta Ray Page 261 ....Kuka sect among Sikhs. Having faced British guns in 1872, they have been hailed occasionally as freedom-fighters, and yet their activities principally concerened bitter attacks on Islam and on cow-slaughter issue, culminating in the murder of some Muslim butchers at Amritsar and Ludiana in 1871." - This is unpublished synthesis. I will remove it today unless it is sourced.- Sinneed 16:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Dropped.- Sinneed 14:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Err no, this is not unpublished synthesis. Kuka Sikhs, were seen as "freedom fighters" by the Indian Independence movement and "Extremists" by the British Authorities. See Forgotten Heroes Of India's Freedom Struggle Chopra, Prabha which talks about "Kuka extremists" page 220, or the Asiatic review page 275 "the Kuka, and extremist Sikh Sect". Thanks --Sikh-History 16:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see wp:SYNTH. The citation is being used to support use of religious terrorism in Indian independence. Therefore the source needs to say that (religious terrorism used to support Indian independence from the Brits). A quote= param would be appropriate.- Sinneed 16:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I see, I was going by the definition of religious terrorism. I think we are approaching this from two differing angles, but nevertheless its fine. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And *that* is the definition of wp:SYNTH.- Sinneed 13:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Err no Sineed. Jugensmyers definition "religious terrorism consists of acts that terrify, the definition of which is provided by the witnesses - the ones terrified - and not by the party committing the act; accompanied by either a religious motivation". Killing another group on the basis of religion, or this case Sikhs killing Muslim butchers. Hardly WP:SYNTH. Thanks--Sikh-History 14:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

*exactly* Synth, unless the source calls it "religious terrorism" explicitly.- Sinneed 14:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If a book says "Killing butchers is murder." and then later says "A drunk butcher fell into the street and the street-sweeper, Fred, ran over and killed him.", then by the definition Fred is a murderer. But unless the source says "Fred murdered a butcher.", it is wp:SYNTH to say he did in WP. One must actually put in the 2 and let the reader decide, if one wants the content in the article.- Sinneed 15:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No not WP:SYNTH, that is not the intention or the spirit of WP:Synth, but if that is the way you understand it, then thats fine. I simply do not agree with you, leave it at that. Thanks --Sikh-History 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel comfortable leaving it at: I think the community won't uphold your view. - Sinneed 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 - Neutrality flag

Does this tag still belong? - Sinneed 14:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably dropping this on Sunday unless there is a WP-centric objection.- Sinneed 19:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuka Sikh Sect and Indian Independence

Why was this reference removed? It looks fine to me. Thanks--Sikh-History 16:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Flagged for some time, no response on the talk page. See above. There is nothing there that says terrorism was used in the Indian independence movement. A quote= param would be appropriate.- Sinneed 16:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Reworked to match the source. It does not mention Religious Terrorism. Applying your definition or mine to infer that it was is unpublished synthesis. The source would actually need to say that Religious terrorism was used in the movement, explicitly. We don't get, as editors, to infer.- Sinneed 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

We are talking about Sikh extremism, means where ever Sikhs did extreme acts, we are talking about them!!!!!!--24.5.208.21 (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So, if a Sikh painted himself red and danced in the market square, that would belong? No. - Sinneed 13:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indian Independance Movement is being used as wp:coatrack

The Indian Independance section pre-1947 has nothing to do with the post 80's terrorism movement, one was achieved by Peaceful means of pasive resistance and the other with its links to the ISI

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Sikh-terror-outfits-seeking-volunteers-from-US-India-Report/articleshow/5603397.cms

In case it escaped your notice this article is about Sikh Extremism not Sikh Terrorism, hence the article has expanded to encase all aspects of Sikh Extremism. Infact, I would like to explore aspects of Sikh Extremism further, and se whether there are Mughal recors of extremist Sikh behaviour. Thanks--Sikh-History 11:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Classic example of wp:coatrack.- Sinneed 14:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How so? Thanks--Sikh-History 15:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

How not? - Sinneed 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note, I would like to know how Bhaghat Singh, Udham Singh]], Kuka Sikhs were passive elements of the Indian Independence movement? What about the Ghadar Movement, led by Sikh Extremists? Do you consider murdering people passive? Thanks--Sikh-History 15:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"were passive elements of the Indian Independence movement?" - straw man fallacy - that is your statement. " led by Sikh Extremists?" - that is your statement.- Sinneed 15:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Not a fallacy at all. You had better brush up on Indian History and the Sikh Extremist involvemnt. Problem is people here wish to define Sikh Extremism, as Sikh Terrorism in effect. They were described as Sikh Extremists and the references state so, by the British. If I really wanted to make an issue I could have done a while ago as to why the article wishes to WP:Cherry. Thanks--Sikh-History 17:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

"You had better brush up on Indian History and the Sikh Extremist involvemnt." Please brush up on your wp:NPA. The position you assign me is not mine. Stop now.- Sinneed 18:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My point stands. Do not WP:Cherry. This page is about Sikh Extremism and not Sikh Terrorism. Also if you try and wrongly warn me again, I will pursue this with the admins fully. Last time you were warned if I recall about this kind of behaviour. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't stop, haven't started. Reinstating the warning I had removed as a courtesy.- Sinneed 15:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)