Archives

Archive 1

This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. This template must be substituted. Replace {{Requested move ...}} with {{subst:Requested move ...}}. Let's keep the comments clean and civil from now on. Here are my suggestions. From now onwards, before making changes, vocalize them here and gain consensus. Add your suggestions under the banners below:--Flewis^(talk) 12:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Road, I am bit busy now and will later comment in this post, but I must state that rarely have I seen such thorough post in talk page, kudos. LegalEagle (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global security site may have some defects one being a glaring lack of references but except for peer reviewed journals rarely do reports/articles have sources, one does not find reporters from times or telegraph giving reference whenever they give an information which is in public domain. I think instead of investigating whether lead contribution itself tells a lot about the contributor roadahead should consider googling and replacing the global security info refs which has been used in the article. Also dont broach the topic of POVfork again and again the issue has been done to death in the Afd and there was clearly no consensus so dont just try to push a pov. LegalEagle (talk) 04:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is in reply to Roadahead's post on my talk page inviting me to take a look at this. Sorry – I'm neither knowledgeable about nor really interested in the subject matter, and must respectfully decline.  Sandstein  06:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because GlobalSecurity has not ONE author, doesnt make it POV, the information gathered over a number of years by GlobalSecurity.org not just regarding Sikh Extremism but also the like of Hamas or al-Qaeda amongst many others makes it a less POV source than say Sikh Extrmists themselves like the ISYF who as I understand are against being labeled fundamentalist terrorists as as is Osama Bin Laden Satanoid (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk: Roadahead, thanks for doing such thorough analysis. Kudos to you. I fully agree with you that this article is a WP:POVFORK of the articles Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency only. Infact Punjab Insurgency should also be merged into Khalistan movement. I sincerely hope that the respected editors who voted in favour of this article, will read and study the facts which you have presented. This propaganda article must be deleted. --Beetle CT (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful analysis by the user Roadahead! I agree with the user above that it is rarely that someone invests this kind of time and critical thinking in writing a response! The editors need to take a close look at Roadahead's analysis and ensure that this article is deleted. Zafarnamah (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis of the article and subject matter. Also many of the links to this article do not function and have been withdrawn from source. There is no doubt in my mind that the intention of the author behind this article is entirely malicious. I will be going through each and every link used within the article when I have time. Thanks --Sikh-history (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough waiting! Seems like people are not interested to address the real issue. I'll be removing all the claims/statements/source-manipulations stemming from GlobalSecurity source after a few hours. Please do not make unnecessary hue and cry if you cannot see the points that I raised in my analysis above. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 08:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Road, I strongly believe that unilateral action without consensus would harm the article rather than do good. Please read my comments above as made on 30th Nov. Try to achieve a consensus or I would have no option but to report you to administrators for taking suitable action. LegalEagle (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalEagle you and I have both taken unilateral action in the past. The case made by RoadAhead ^=Discuss= is indeed compelling and there has not been any reponses or rebuttal to his points. --Sikh-history (talk) 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LeagleEagle, I'm once again not appreciative of your behavior and choices. Previously you went onto ad-hominem attack on me and now you are almost close to bullying. I had spent quite a time to analyze the issue with using the GlobalSecurity web article, posted the problems here and also invited you for views when you said you were busy. At the same time, I had also invited almost all the registered editors who took part on this article before but none of editors who were against AFD responded on analysis appropriately except AFD closer "Sandstein" who expressed inability to part-take due to lack of knowledge and interest on the subject matter. You never came back on this topic before 30th Nov (even that response from you came after my objection on 29th Nov), but still found time and continued to give tacit approval to editors who are pursuing propaganda and hate on wikipedia by editing and removing content to support them. In the same effort you said, "..Milnet is a reputable source on intelligence matter (again this is my perception which i would try to prove to be right in the next few lines) at par with global security".Did you see the glaring mistakes in that article from GlobalSecurity that I pointed to here? What should one think about your priorities? Should I think that you want to neglect the mistakes and carry on using unreliable sources with glaring mistakes? ....Now you call my action "unilateral" even when I invited nearly 10 editors (including you) to read and comment on the problems that I pointed to? Please be reasonable in your stand. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Road, quite respecting your zeal to present a pov I was really struck by penchant to pick and choose your support. While in Operation Blue Star you would love to support wide pro millitant propaganda in the guise of 'alleged cruelty of indian army' on the basis of one peer reviewed journal and sources (footnotes) copied from single source but you would not do so for the present article on the basis that global security, a well reputed website, in this particular hasnt given reference. This is a blatant double standards being shown by you, yet you accuse me of giv[ing] tacit approval to editors who are pursuing propaganda and hate on wikipedia. Carrying on from my arguements as given on 30th, I have just one thing to say all the big essay that you have tried to write against globasecurity I think that your overharping on reference issue would have a gaping hole and would be the weakest link, Janes military weekly also rarely gives reference to its astounding claims, does that make it any less reliable. It all depends on the reputation of the source in question and its relevence in the light of the wiki article. Moreover most of the information for which global security was used as a source are for issues which are already in public domain; thus excessive harping on the suitability of global security would show that instead of following wiki norms and presenting a npov idea though discussion you are covertly and overtly trying to manipulate the system and in aiding it to be used as a platform for disseminating false and malicious information. LegalEagle (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LegalEagle, Prejudice will not help to see what I pointed to in my "big essay" (as you call it) above. Nevertheless, can you show how I am "supporting wide pro militant propaganda"? Talking about or adding facts about abuse of power by army and human rights violations becomes "militant propaganda"? What is so "militant" about it? ....any chance of it being "human" according to your point of view? I don't understand what you are talking about footnotes and "blatant double standards" in your comment and would like you to expand those on the appropriate article "Operation Bluestar" where we can discuss that further. I said your behavior is giving "tacit approval" to Satanoid etc because you skipped replying to my "big essay" which shows several inaccuracies in the GlobalSecurity article (see above) but still kept removing another editor Sikh-history's and my edits from the article. I would like you to also note that my points written above are not "against GlobalSecurity" as you have generalized above; rather they highlight several inaccuracies in that article "Sikhs in Punjab" and the problems associated with using it as the core reference of the article like it was being done by Satanoid. Also, note that what you are trashing as "over harping on references" highlights 16 accuracy etc related problems and 8 problems on using that article as source (in addition to unethical editing of Satanoid; whats your take on those 24 (16 + 8) points in the "big essay" above? If you think other reliable neutral sources for the claims made by using GlobalSecurity article exist, why don't you input those sources as you are already aware of those? Lastly, the claim of "covertly and overtly trying to manipulate the system and in aiding it to be used as a platform for disseminating false and malicious information" is a very heavy claim because a discerning readers of our discussion would first like to know where I have presented "false and malicious information" and how you came to know about the "covertness" and "overtness" factor that you allege. So my friend, lets be reasonable and keep our hearts and brains open even if we disagree. Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling people prejudiced. What you're doing is critiquing the GlobalSecurity article itself, apparently because you perceive it to contain some unsavoury information. So by questioning what is an obviously reliable source you're simply trying to push your POV on this issue, but removing information that you do not agree with. If you're going to ask for references FOR references, then we can continue doing that ad infinitum. --vi5in^[talk] 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, This is what I meant by the statement which you quickly jumped to call "personal attack" - LeagleEagle has been calling me baised towards some assumed pro Khalistani ideals(of course unwarranted) in our previous discussions; that combined with his not responding appropriately to the points that I raised here made me feel that presence of "prejudice" in his thinking towards me is not helping constructive discussion. Let me point you back to 16 accuracy etc related problems and 8 problems on using that article as source (in addition to unethical editing). Specifically, note 8 problems on using that article as source. You are wrongly classifying my removal of the inaccurate and unreliable information by hijacking my logic behind the removal as "...removing information that you do not agree with". May I request you to re-read the points above to get the logic behind my removal?. Again, you have gone onto assuming by saying -"If you're going to ask for references FOR references, then we can continue doing that ad infinitum" - can you show me where I am saying give me references for references? The main issue is of inaccuracy, unreliability and "no-extraordinary source" capability of this article which is being used to make extra-ordinary claims. Regards,--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roadahead, what I meant by the references was that you were claiming that there are no references in the Global Security article itself. I don't agree with your removal of the pieces of text supported by Global Security, but I do agree with you that the article could definitely be written better. Please look at my recent changes and my comment at the end of this talk page regarding those recent changes. --vi5in^[talk] 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Road at least I am not in cohort with people who made a willing experienced administrator who was ready to mediate on a sensitive topic run away because of constant covert accusations of being unfair, so come out of the 'being persecuted' mentality. LegalEagle (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LeagleEagle, please stop personal attacks on other editors. Did he ever ask you to come out of Anti-Sikhism mentality. --Singh6 (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LeagleEagle, once again you are digressing and not addressing the real issue. May I again request you to address these and these points? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 06:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article could use a major cleanup. I've cleaned it up a little bit, but more needs to be done. I've definitely noticed blatantly POV statements in this article, in addition a section that did nothing other than list terrorist acts. This really isn't the way to write an article. In addition, the article could be better organized. Finally I also think that some sections fall afoul of WP:UNDUE. I mean, it's evident that Sikh fundamentalists carried out terrorist acts; that's what the article is about. But the article should be about the genesis of the movement, its role in the world and its impact. Not a laundry list of terrorist acts. I hope the other editors here agree with me. --vi5in^[talk] 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the page has been protected, can all parties discuss the issue here? I don't want to hear anything as to why the article should be deleted. The article exists and so let's just try to make it read better. I hope my comments above will show that I'm not hear to spread any kind of POV. The article in its current state could use a LOT of improvement. The only thing that I request (and I'm repeating myself) is that you don't harp on whether this article needs to exist or not. --vi5in^[talk] 22:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Now that the page has been protected" is passive voice which may hide the reality; the page has been actually gotten protected by writer of this line (Vivin). Please note that passive tone has been often used to evade reality and as such this one could be seen as the same. This is what actually happened, first Vivin violated 3RR by continuously reverting to disputed content (example see his back to back revert-5, revert-4, revert-3, revert-2 and revert-1). Seeing which RoadAhead (that is, me) filed 3RR report. After which, vivin rushed to make "a few changes on article while still keeping much of the disputed content" and then rushed to seek page protection. Vivin then came to the talk page acting mediator. See the timeline of these actions from vivin and see the extensive discussion already filed on the talkpage to decide on your own if this is ethical behavior? For me, its an obvious approach of first avoiding discussion and pushing POV via continuous reverts and then evading ban by introducing small edit and asking for page protection to disputed content. Wasn't the discussion already there? Why not rebutt the 24 (16 + 8 ) issues already listed on the talkpage by me many days ago?--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi vi5in^[talk] has not most of the content here been covered in other articles i.e. Khalistan, Behzti etc. Is there really a need for this? The whole question of Khalistan (which is the catalyst for terrorist attacks) is linked to Khalistan. We do not treat the outrages in Northern Ireland as Catholic Terrorism, but as terrorist attacks done by those who want a united Ireland. There really is no need for this page. This can be easily iincorporated in previous pages on Khalistan --Sikh-history (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that there is still a pervasive influence (or echo, if you will) of the Khalistan movement. For example, there are still groups in North America and the UK that demand a separate Sikh homeland. Activists from these movements were responsible for the Air India bombing, and they definitely share extremist viewpoints. Therefore, I believe that the term is definitely encyclopedic. So like I mentioned before, we should describe how the movement came about, its peak (during Operation Bluestar and the demand for Khalistan), and its current state. Right now the article isn't written too well and it also seems to simply list terrorist acts other than talking about the movement itself. --vi5in^[talk] 23:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, Khalistan and Operation Bluestar are just instances of Sikh extremism and don't actually talk about the term itself. Finally, the as far as the IRA is concerned, it really wasn't Catholic Terrorism since it wasn't based on Catholic Ideology. Of course, a lot of the bad blood was based on Catholic vs. Protestant, but really what it came down to was a separate homeland for the Irish based on being Irish and not just being Catholic. Whereas, the idea for Sikh extremism is based on being Sikh (or their idea of what a Sikh is, anyway). --vi5in^[talk] 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point--vi5in^[talk]. Just as the IRA did not see their form of terrorism as Catholic terrorism, so the Khalistan movement and associated terrorism cannot really be percieved as "Sikh" terrorism. There are dissafected groups in all walks of life. There are no words or terms for a "Holy" war within the Sikh ideoligy. Christianity talks about crusades and Islam about Jehad, wrongly or rightly in some Christian or Islamic eyes, acts of terrorism could be done on this basis. There is no equivalent to this ideoligy amongst Sikhs. In order to have a basis to link Sikhism with terrorism, one would have to prove that there is an ideological link wihin Sikhism that can justify terrorist behaviour. There is none. Therefore as I stated before, any terrorist activity that Sikhs have done are based not on religion, but of a Homeland called Khalistan (that was promised at the birth of India and Pakistan to Sikhs). One aspect that has not been mention is the political wing of the Khalistan movement led by Simranjit Singh Mann, the equivalent of Sein Fein.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here would be my plan of attack:

• We find an agreement on sources. If we really are getting our panties tangled over a couple sources, then they should be replaceable, and if they're not, we are breaking WP:UNDUE.
• We restart the article, yes, restart it, from scratch, using these sources and strictly following a methodological guideline.

I am not really that excited over the current state of the article. And we should not push WP:Original Research theories if this terrorism is related to Ireland, or is simply a political Khalistan movement. We must rely on what the sources tell us. --Enzuru 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enzuru, I would argue that this article and the premise that there is an organised terrorist movement based on the ideoligy of Sikhism is original research. Any terrorist attacks that have ever occured or carried out by Sikh have been based on the Khalistan movement and not on Sikh ideoligy.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets start by addressing the the lead first which currently says -"Sikh extremism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an extreme interpretation of Sikh beliefs, principles and tenets." I'd already mentioned the problems with lead towards end of my discussion here. The current lead is now a little changed (from what I objected to) but still problematic as it is making big claims and yet is unsourced. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well RoadAhead, how exactly would you define Sikh Extremism? Isn't it an extreme interpretation of Sikh principles and tenets? And haven't these extreme interpretations resulted in violent (terrorist?) acts? --vi5in^[talk] 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, you still don't get it? If I define it wouldn't it be OR and self-publishing? That is exactly one of the issues which was presented here. Did you skip reading that discussion? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadahead, all you have said is that it makes controversial claims. If you really want to split hairs and be extremely pedantic, we would have to define the term extremism and then show that the behaviour of these individuals is extreme. I think we can safely assume all that. We don't need references for things which are immediately obvious. To say "Sikh extremism is a manifestation of an extreme interpretation of Sikh religious principles and tenets" - should be sufficient. Is that better? --vi5in^[talk] 03:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, you asked where this term is defined. Here are a few places. We can start there for a good definition. I haven't gone through all that information yet, but it does show that the term exists and is used. --vi5in^[talk] 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi vi5in^[talk], see my comments above about the premise of the article and the presumption that this is terrorism based on Sikh principles. This is clearly wrong.--Sikh-history (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh-history and RoadAhead, I think you are missing the point in that this article will not be deleted or is not flawed in its concept, because it clearly is a term that is used. Since the term is visibly used (as vi5in just showed) we must use these very same sources to define what Sikh extremism is. If we want to write an entire article on how the term is perhaps part of hate speech, then we can, if that's what most of the sources are saying. But we can't use WP:Original research to discount the term unless the sources themselves are doing that, like was seen in Hindu terrorism where all the sources that referenced it were jesting at the idea of it, hence it was deemed not notable or was simply a fringe view and deleted. So once again, I propose the methodology of outlining a good amount of sources and then from those sources building an entirely new article free of both controversial sources and edits that perhaps aren't done in good will. RoadAhead made points that were deemed acceptable by many about our current use of sources, but I believe we also should come to the consensus that this article is certainly notable using sources aside from GlobalSecurity and anything else perhaps less mainstream. --Enzuru 10:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Enzuru, with all due respect, I am not missing the point. The point everyone is missing is that any Sikh Extremism is not fuelled by religion, or any ideoligy rooted in Sikhism, it is rooted in the Khalistan movement. I would argue that the definition of Sikh Extremism in this article WP:Original research. Any refrence to Sikh extremism should be under the subsection of Khalistan. You don't need an article making unsubstantiated claims that Sikh Extremism is linked to the religion. Now if people want a debate onn Sikh ideolighy and religion then lets have one. The premise and definitions are worng. No one denies it does not exist but is not based on any religious ideoligy. If anything one could link the Khalistan movement directly to the Akali Daal Party and the Congress Party and the dissafection of Punjabi farmers. I have no difficulty in the term Sikh Extremism, but it is wrongly defined. In order to define Sikh Extremism and based in Sikhism one would have to root it in Sikh ideoligy. There is not one refrence that can do this. Regards.--Sikh-history (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to go around in circles, but what is the Khalistan movement rooted in? It's rooted in the creation of a theocratic Sikh state for Sikhs. Meaning, the basis of the Khalistan movement is the demand for a separate state based on the religion (principle, tenets, what have you) of Sikhism. So Sikh Extremism => Khalistan Movement => Sikh state based on Sikh priciples and tenents. I think we can safely say by transitivity that Sikh Extremism is based on (an extreme interpretation of) Sikh principles and tenents. As Enzuru said, the article exists and is not flawed in its concept. So let's go about trying to source it and write it properly. --vi5in^[talk] 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, if you can cite sources that say Sikh extremism is solely based in the Khalistan movement, then we can put that. What's the problem? If the sources don't claim this, we can't do WP:Original research by claiming it, even if they themselves prove it through their claims. --Enzuru 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let us put it this way, before the issue of Khalistan came to a head in the 1980's was there a single incident of any Sikh being involved in terrorism?--Sikh-history (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, you are still not understanding WP:CITE and WP:NOR- Do you want us to cite your "transitivity theory" in the lead now? Even your OR/POV is not correct. First, "Khalistan Movement" is different if you look up how different people want to define it. GOI (Government of India) may want the world to believe that its "simply religious movement based separatism". However, the Sikhs say its a political demand seeking what was promised to them when they chose to stay with India when the British India was partititioned in 1947. Second, the Sikhs seek implementation of Anandpur Sahib Resolution^[8]. (san Jagjit Singh Chauhan, Surjan Singh Gill kinds from my discussion). Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala has been quoted in newspapers on Khalistan issue (just a few examples for now):

"I don't oppose it nor do I support it. We are silent. However, one thing is definite that if this time the Queen of India does give it to us, we shall certainly take it. We won't reject it. We shall not repeat the mistake of 1947. As yet, we do not ask for it. It is Indira Gandhi's business and not mine, nor Longowal's, nor of any other of our leaders. It is Indira's business. Indira should tell us whether she wants to keep us in Hindostan or not. We like to live together, we like to live in India."^[9] (stress mine).

"How can a nation which has sacrificed so much for the freedom of the country want it fragmented but I shall definitely say that we are not in favor of Khalistan nor are we against it."^[10]

Can I expect a little research from you before your commenting? Sidenote: Even that article of Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was under similar manipulations of resources, check the proof on talkpage.--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadahead, I understand WP:NOR and WP:CITE perfectly well. I'm just saying that certain things are immediately obvious. Like I said, the term "Sikh Extremism" exists and is sourced. I'll look up the references I posted to come up with a better definition of the term. Would you ask for a citation saying that the sky is blue? I believe you're being overly pedantic simply because you don't like the idea of Sikh Extremism. Let me ask you a question - do you believe that Sikh Extremism (whatever YOUR definition of the term might be, and I don't mean for the article's sake) exists? --vi5in^[talk] 21:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, I disagree on your claim about your understanding of WP:NOR and WP:CITE; let me specifically make you read the section "When adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged" on the WP:CITE policy which you claim you understand "perfectly well". And now once again let me point you back to the article lead which currently says -"Sikh extremism is religious terrorism by groups or individuals, the motivation of which is typically rooted in an extreme interpretation of Sikh beliefs, principles and tenets." The claims (underlined for you by me) in the preceding lead are not as simple as "Sky is blue". They are controversial and heavy claims (which will most likely be challenged), not a simple statement. Hopefully for the last time, let me call out loud- "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of arguing about things that have no bearing on this article, how about we start somewhere? Please tell me what YOU think Sikh Extremism is. We can at least try starting from there. Don't quote WP:NOR to me; I'm just asking you what you think it is. I need somewhere to start; I feel like we're going in circles right now without discussing anything. --vi5in^[talk] 23:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, I disagree that cite-policy-1 and cite-policy-2 including my discussion "has no bearing on the this article". I haven't hit any "extra-ordinary" source so far that can justify these extraordinary claims, so I have not added anything to lead. Wikipedia specifically says - "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for WP:BLP and the undue weight provision of WP:NPOV." Additionally, may I also mention that according to wikipedia rules, "I like it" is equally wrong as "I don't like it". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Did you completely ignore my question? Why are you waffling and deflecting? I didn't ask you about sources. Simply repeating your arguments over and over again isn't going to make your point any stronger. Please answer my question: What is Sikh Extremism according to you? Or if you'd much rather, how would you write the lead of the article to describe "Sikh Extremism"? --vi5in^[talk] 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can clearly see that its not becoming understandable for sure; can only say please re-read the issues above. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 09:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that you are either unwilling or unable to understand. You know perfectly well what my question is. The reason is that you personally don't want to legitimize the term by telling me what Sikh Extremism is. All your "issues" that have been posted above deal with trying to invalidate the term "Sikh Extremism". All I have asked you is to tell me in your own words what Sikh Extremism means. But you're unwilling to do that. I can see that you have no desire to improve this article. Enzuru and I will work on it and try to make it into a good article. If you ever want to help, feel free to jump in. --vi5in^[talk] 20:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, I feel that it is actually you who is "either unwilling or unable to understand[1]"? Yes I perfectly know what your question is, however even after repetitive explanations you still don't understand that you are asking the wrong question. Nevertheless, I had already replied[2] to this question. You are again wrong in trying to bundle my complete ongoing argument (since Nov 26th) as "just trying to invalidated the term Sikh extremism"; having already pointed you back to my original posting in my previous replies I will not do this again this time. Begging the question (assuming the answer) is not the solution of the ongoing issue with this article. Also, may I request you to leave guess work on my desires aside? As other editors have pointed out - the underlying title "Sikh extremism" itself is controversial and there seems no reliable information; most of the considerable sources that I've been hitting on the net are making a word salad out of many words as talking about Khalistan; that takes us back to the povfork issue. Thank you for expressing your desire for making a "good article" out of the ongoing discussion, hopefully you will take "all my issues that have been posted" into consideration. I'll do my best to keep abreast the developments, however, I cannot guarantee that I'll be able to support expanding even if the article starts appearing like a coatrak. Cheers--RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I understand very well. I'm not sure what your definition of "explanation" is, but repeatedly linking to a critique of the term "Sikh Extremism" doesn't quite do it. You manage to say a lot while saying very little. I'm removing myself from this current thread. I can see that it won't go anywhere, and that you simply can't even bring yourself to define the term, inspite of references that support it (a direct invalidation of your "word salad" claim). --vi5in^[talk] 03:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, by "explanation" I meant the repetitive description of the problem that I have been trying to put across in my talks with you. No I have not linked to any critique of the word "Sikh Extremism" in my previous reply, did you assume the 2 links are pointing to there? (they are not). Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to rebuild the article from scratch. You are all invited to contribute: User:Vivin/Sandbox/Sikh_Extremism. --Enzuru 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Enzuru! Now we're getting somewhere! --vi5in^[talk] 23:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enzuru I think it will be a good idea to add a second last section (keeping reflist as last) specifically for discussions or comments on the content that anybody adds. May I also suggest, that the rules on the sandbox page should also included that sources with disclaimers on accuracy should not be included, eg -"BECAUSE OF THE RISK OF MISHEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS COMPLETE ACCURACY". . Thanks, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia policy that cites that? I don't see any problem in adding a source as long as you provide a disclaimer with it. For example we can cite whatever claim is made and then say that "... although the BBC published a disclaimer and has expresses reservations regarding the source because of the risk of mishearing and the difficulty in some cases of identifying individual speakers." It doesn't make the source any less valid (especially since it is the BBC we're talking about here) --vi5in^[talk] 02:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can create that section if you would like RoadAhead, but don't you feel this talk page will work just as well? In fact, the article had its own specific talk page, but I edited it so it forwarded to here. You can edit that talk page so it doesn't redirect to here. Anyway, how much could that transcript really differ from that actual event? Do we have a Wikipedia policy against using transcripts that might be slightly inaccurate? Why can't we just note it when we use it as a citation? --Enzuru 02:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, firstly that BBC transcript in question is supposedly a transcript of talk between a few individuals and does not serve an exceptional source for kind of claim it is intended to be used here( WP:NOTSOAPBOX, particularly see "opinions" section under this policy. Wikinews may accommodate such transcripts). Secondly, if we still consider inclusion (out of leniency) it can only be included as a "statement of opinion" of specific notable individuals and not "statement of fact". Even then, there is a real problem when the disclaimer says something like -"..can't guarantee who said what?" (in addition to "no guarantee of accuracy"). So now whom do we attribute the statement of opinion to? This is a clear WP:VERIFY violation. (PS: Its fine to have discussion here as well, just thought it would be convenient to keep all together). --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 09:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One statement, by itself is not a violation of WP:SOAPBOX. You're completely misrepresenting Wikipedia policy in this matter. The statement is from the BBC, a highly reputable source. It's funny how you're being overanalytical and pedantic with that one source simply because you don't like what it says. I agree that the BBC has expressed reservations about its accuracy (because of the possibility of mishearing things during transcription). But the source itself is not in question so there is absolutely no violation of WP:VERIFY at all. The sentence is sourced and attributable. --vi5in^[talk] 20:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, I am really surprised - did you read my reply above? In short - transcript of talk is simply statement of opinion NOT statement of fact. Those statements of opinion are not that of BBC and need to be attributed to some notable person. BBC disclaimer says "cannot guarantee who said what"; here comes the problem with using BBC transcript to support the idea of "Sikh extremism" - and that is "whom to attribute"? A disclaimer of the type "don't know who said what" is certainly a WP:VERIFY violation in this case and we are neither here to do that verification for BBC nor to use it for supporting controversial claims. Hopefully, the issue is clear now. Cheers, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? Then I guess we need to go to every single source that the BBC has quoted or transcribed and try and find who said what first. Wow. You have to realize that the BBC itself has a measure of reliability and reputation. They don't simply put crap on there that they can't immediately verify. The source stays. If you have an issue with it, take it to WP:RS. We can discuss it there. --vi5in^[talk] 03:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, talkshow => people talk => individual opinions => can only be used as opinions. Now lets say, I want to use BBC transcript of a talk show that had many X,Y,Z talking. There are some comments/views from all people participating on, lets says, the UFO topic. First, I cannot use such transcript (even if its from BBC) and say "UFO's exist" (but if Mr. X is notable on UFO's topic I may be able to say that Mr X says,"..."; but wait see second point). Second, if BBC puts a comment-c1 on UFO's against the name of Mr. X in the transcript (which we are interested in), and then states no guarantee that X said this (via disclaimer), then the WP:VERIFY problem occurs even if I want to attribute this comment-c1 to Mr. X as opinion. In such case appealing to the authority of BBC will be wrong; they have already disclaimed that (via disclaimer). Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I said that we can put the disclaimer in there. But apparently that isn't satisfactory to you either. --vi5in^[talk] 16:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is when WP:VERIFY violation occurs and we become guilty of WP:ILIKEIT and the fallacy of "appealing to authority". --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 18:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While deciding if BBC is a valid source, please start contributing to the sandbox with non-BBC sources. Thank you. --Enzuru 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment about the article and second source in talk for the sandbox.--Sikh-history (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why our sandbox is being deleted? If it's in the wrong place, can you move it? --Enzuru 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why either. Perhaps sandboxes aren't allowed in the mainspace? I've moved it here anyhow. --vi5in^[talk] 02:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not the article and its references sources be they CBC News, BBC, Times of India, globalSecurity, New York Times, Rediff etc.. its simply that those who voted to have the article deleted are hell bent on proving either the references are POV which is ridiculous. Lets look at Roadaheads claim on Globalsecurity from Wikipedia ...It sates clearly GlobalSecurity.org, launched in 2000, is a public policy organization whose mission is to be a reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security. Offering its information products through its website, the organization's editorial office is located in Alexandria, Virginia, USA.

I wander What the extremists have to say about that before editing the Wiki reference ???? Satanoid (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid, as stated before, stop accusing everyone of being extremists. You are in no position to report anything to any admins.--Sikh-history (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll decide what I should report. Satanoid (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Your NOT admin Satanoid (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the basics of wikipedia? --Sikh-history (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You dont get it do you ? Even this discussion has been edited, if I use the word vandalism it get replaced by the words edits

Dont beleive me, then see for yourself http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikh_extremism&action=edit&undoafter=257268543&undo=257268636

Sikh history is doing raodaheads dirtywork, its been spotted by many, except you my friend ? Or perhaps you prefer to see with a blind eye ?

Please sign your edits. Yes, I see that insulting things like "Vandalism by x" were changed to "Edits by x". That is very proper. Please. Focus on the content. sinneed (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't agree. While it's obvious Satanoid isn't using the correct definition of vandal, changing an accusation of "vandalism" to "edits" is not correct in someone else's posts on the talk page. How is it hurting that editor if it's complete falsehood? It isn't, and it's not just being used as an insult either. --Enzuru 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Satanoid feels that my edits are "vandalism" I would encourage the editor to take up this case on the appropriate platform. If the editor does not know what vandalism is, here is the information. If the editor does not know where to file a report, follow this link. Currently, the editing behavior like creating new sections for every comment, continuously calling edits vandalism which other third party editors disagree, reverting information unabated and continuous personal attacks could be viewed as a well understood plan of sabotaging a sane discussion. I feel that most of the editors on this page, including sinneed have been exceptionally tolerant of the behavior of Satanoid. It needs to stop somewhere. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article should be moved to Sikh terrorism since that appears to be what we are really writing about. Our use of the sources would also be much more appropriate under the new title. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the move. --vi5in^[talk] 21:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also looked a bit on JSTOR and found a good number of articles on this topic. Generally speaking they also orient themselves more around the terrorism, though of course extremism and separatism come up as well. They are all very related concepts but the terrorism stands at the center; the terrorism is what makes the news and generates the controversy. Sikh extremism is notable because of terrorism, not because of social policies as is the case for Christian and Muslim extremism (the latter is noted for both terror and social policies). So the proposed move will get more to the point. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that THIS article is about Sikh terrorism, and that the title is misleading. I do think that an article on Sikh extremism might have a place as well. sinneed (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading User:Roadahead's concerns, I am dubious about the titles Sikh Extremism and Sikh Terrorism... as RA points out, this ties emotionally-charged and to-many insulting words to a group. I somewhat like the Punjab Insurgency and Khalistan Terrorism ideas.sinneed (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that first reference I added will become entirely proper once the move is completed. I think we should move this as soon as possible, and if editors find enough material about Sikh extremism itself they can write a new article over the redirect. I haven't been following the dispute here for very long; do you expect that any others will object to the move, or can we execute it now? 67.194.202.113 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, move is certainly an option and I suggest moving the content under Punjab Insurgency as compared to a more generalized "Sikh Terrorism". "Terrorism" is once again a very controversial term with many ongoing debates on the definition of this term itself. If we choose, "Sikh Terrorism" instead, we need to work on finding sources telling the motive of terror and who was "terrorized" and what/if is the role of religion in justifying those acts. Again, that new link by 67.194.202.113 talks like "Sikhism is also not free.....", be careful with that type of usage, many places the word "Sikhism" has been used to describe every thing related to society. A general consensus on terrorist activities with that motive (religion) is also needed otherwise we will end up using wikipedia for making WP:UNDUE articles like "Sikh/Muslim/Christian thieves", "Sikh/Muslim/Christian cheaters", "Sikh/Muslim/Christian murderers" and what not. Many of my original issues on the usage of references with trivial explanation on the topic (using words like keywords) are still open. I'll be in war mode on personal and other work for the rest of the week, hoping to refocus on our ongoing discussion off and on in the meantime and more so later after this week.Cheers! --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roadahead, I found your comments about the article name very insightful. Thank you. sinneed (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are fine with the move? I don't know what you mean about a "general consensus" about religious terrorism; reliable sources discussing this Sikh terrorism almost always mention its religious basis and the theocratic state envisioned by this violent separatism. That they also are keen to attach "extremism" to these factions should make it clear enough that nobody worth mentioning considers mainstream Sikhism a religion that inherently leads to terrorism or embraces this style of violence and associated political goals. These aren't terrorists who just happen to be Sikhs (as may be the case for your thief, cheater, and murderer examples), but rather are noted for drawing upon their specific interpretation of Sikh theology (termed extremist) to motivate and justify their (violent) approach towards the political goals. To ignore the religious aspect of their motives would be to run counter to reliable sources and a responsible summary of the topic. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

67.194.202.113 , please create an appropriate id as the University of Michighan has a networked system, and anyone can edit under this IP. RoadAhead is correct, we need a general consensus first on the definition. Every single account I have read routes Sikh Terrorism firmly in the Politics of Khalistan which has been described as a theocratic-democratic state (in other words even the so called supporters of this have no idea what shape or form it will take). There is nothing withing the religion eg Jehad, Crusade etc) that would lend support to any form of terrorism. The aim of "Sikh Terrorism" is not to see some aim of Sikhism fufiled (ege like Islam, war on the Kafir, or Christianity war on the non-beliver), but to fo9rm the land of Khalistan. One thing I do acknowledge is that any solution to this problem will be two fold i.e. Political, and Religious, but to define Sikh Terrorism as religious terrorism is totally inaccurate.--Sikh-history (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources describe Sikh terrorism as religious terrorism; your personal opinion on this definition is irrelevant. Religious terrorism often accompanies political goals so I do not understand why you seem to view these as mutually exclusive. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT my personal opinion but the opinion of sources with ISBN numbers. I really don't care about POV's I just want the facts, and the fact is any act of SikhTerrorism has occured as a result of Khalistan, not as a result of religion.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually reading further, Sikh Terrorism does not warrant a seperate topic as it is linked so closely to Sikh Extremism, Punjab Insurgency and the Khalistan question.--Sikh-history (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That other Sikh issues are related does not change the fact that the sources in this article (and the sources from JSTOR I plan to integrate after the move) discuss Sikh terrorism. There shouldn't be anything controversial about this move, given the vast number of sources that discuss Sikh terrorism. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are pre-emptying any move. See below. I have studied the Khalistan question for years and from reliable sources and everything being said about the Terrorism aspect seems to be at odds with what is being said by a few people here.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting that despite all of these sources you claim, you generally drag unreliable stuff like khalistan.net to the table. Hey, we'll believe you when you actually present reliable sources supporting your view. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is hosting "Khalistan.net"? I see P. S. Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh (both whom are proponents of Khalistan). I also checked that P. S. Ajrawat represented "Khalistan" at UNPO. If that is the case, these both people (Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh) are notable on Khalistan. Hence, if they are saying that Khalistan will be "theocratic-democratic" or whatever, its notable as well on any place where the proposed governing structure of Khalistan is discussed. Sounds fair? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 00:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we will certainly not rely on the propagandists and their soapbox websites for the facts. See Wikipedia:RS#Extremist and fringe sources. They can be used to state their opinions, perhaps, but reliable academic publications trump them with regard to general facts in the articles. Hence, if a writer for an academic journal defines Khalistan as a proposed theocratic nation (without saying "democratic"), this will trump the definition provided by the PR websites of the separatists or extremists in question. 67.194.202.113 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. To state facts on this topic, we shouldn't use propaganda from the Khalistan.net site. Likewise, we shouldn't use a site that is based on being completely anti-khalistan, as facts. Deavenger (talk) 01:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 67.194.202.113, I appreciate your taking collective responsibility of the stance by stating "No, we will not certainly rely..."[3]. However, in an attempt to solve the dilemma about the notability of Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh's statements on the issue of Khalistan, let me invoke a question - who is "proposing" (and are working for) the state of Khalistan? - Ajrawat and Gurmit Singh Aulakh, right? How is their statement on the "proposed" state (for the realization of which they are working) not notable or unreliable? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he means is that for stating facts, it shouldn't be used. But use the pro-khalistan site to state the opinions of the people who are trying to push for Khalistan. But not to use sites specifically designed for pro-khalistan agendas and sites specifically designed for anti-khalistan agenda, but use research papers, etc. Deavenger (talk) 01:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unlikely that there is sufficient material for both of these articles, in which case we should go with the more general one (Sikh Extremism) in order to avoid losing any material that isn't relevant to Sikh Terrorism. That the article currently covers only terrorism is not an argument - it might do in the future. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I strongly disagree. "Terrorism" is a very strong term, and highly emotionally charged.
Should we go back into every article about any group that has terrorist adherents, and add a terrorism section? I think not. At least 2 editors STRONGLY argue that their voices are being silenced by the resistance to keeping this article about Sikh Terrorism.
With that thought in mind, perhaps we might move ahead with the creation of the Sikh Terrorism article, and refer to it here. Perhaps those who feel that discussion of terrorism in the Sikh Extremism is excessive will have their voices, without those who strongly feel the need to cover Sikh Terrorism broadly feeling they are being silenced? One has asked not to be included in further discussions, at all, finding the current situation intolerable. sinneed (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*. I'm reminded of a dog chasing its tail. I initially preferred the term Sikh Extremism since it definitely is emotionally less charged compared to Sikh Extremism. But Sikh Extremism might be too general, since it mainly has a political aspect (rather than religious or ideological), although the religious angle cannot be ignored. Most of these "extreme" acts by pro-Khalistani elements have been in the form of terrorism. If we wanted to be overly pedantic, we could have a "Khalistani Terrorism" article (being a little facetious here). But that article wouldn't be any different from Khalistan movement. Sikh Terrorism/Extremism, by itself would have to examine and describe the genesis of the extreme beliefs, its effect on the Khalistan Movement, and its status today (it exists, still, in expatriate Sikh communities in North America and the UK. Just go to youtube and search for "Khalistan"). --vi5in^[talk] 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be a long and twisty road, eh? I think your initial thought was very kind, but in the end, the article is about terrorism. sinneed (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Khalistani Terrorist activities would be interesting.--Sikh-history (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page: Well thats interesting, renaming it to Sikh Terrorism might be one outcome, Either way religious extremist behaviour encapsulates terrorist actions (but not always), sometimes the words 'terrorist' and 'extremist' are interchangeable although they were usually referred to as extremists, the term of Terrorists was used many times, here's an example. http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6570000/newsid_6572600/6572653.stm?bw=bb&mp=rm&news=1&bbcws=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 09:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Clemens' "Dread Tomato Addiction" has an important lesson for you. He observed that 100% of the people who ate tomatoes more than 100 years ago were dead... therefore tomatoes were deadly and should be banned. Those darn deadly tomatoes. Another thought... every terrorist is alive... therefore life and terrorism are interchangeable. Almost all terrorists have 2 hands... therefore, having 2 hands and terrorism are interchangeable. *blink* Post hoc ergo propter hoc. sinneed (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a section Vandalism by Roadahead. It has been deleted 4 times ?

Anyone care to answer ?

I believe it's been archived, with the section header removed. Please check the archives. --vi5in^[talk] 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict... Vivin answered before I could finish investigating.
Whoever you are: discussion of editors here is a Bad Thing. There are more than enough challenges focusing on the content. If you feel a need to seek help, you certainly should, and need no support from anyone else to do so.
With that said: going back through the edit history shows the above unsigned edit was by user:satanoid. It also shows an edit creating the section (below the reflist) as Revision as of 17:13, 6 December 2008 user:satanoid and deleted Revision as of 20:57, 6 December 2008 by user:vivin. I would have encouraged vivin to say why the section was removed in the edit summary. sinneed (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, it was in haste right after I archived the older comments and left only the ones pertinent to the current discussion. --vi5in^[talk] 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vivin, have a look at this, its been happening a lot http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sikh_extremism&action=edit&undoafter=257268543&undo=257268636

I know what you mean!I'm getting fed up with the vandalism by Sikh history Satanoid (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a gossip page. Please focus on the content, not the editors. Your fascination with other editors is disruptive.sinneed (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've gone a bit too far this time - if I changed the wordings to your discussion, would you class that as vandalism (as link above)

YES / NO ?

If you cant answer then dont lecture Sineed Satanoid (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the wp:vandalism discussion page, nor is it about me and my philosopy. Please focus on the content, not the editors. Your fascination with other editors is ... disturbing. sinneed (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of us believe that at least some of this article is not neutral, please, please, PLEASE stop deleting the flags so stating. Restoring a statement, however sourced, that "Sikh Extremism is religious terrorism" *IS NOT* restoring it to a neutral state. Even if correct, it is *STILL* not neutral. There is no excuse for repeatedly removing these tags. It is tiresome to re-add them.

Please stop.

Now.

An idea: Instead of adding a statement like "x is y[2]", make it "According to z, x is y[2]".

The source you are citing gives examples of Sikh Extremists who are terrorist. I can give examples of humans who are terrorists. Thus, by your argument, I can replace your statement with "Humans are terrorists". This is called post hoc ergo propter hoc. It is a classic logic fallacy, and is not hard to avoid, with care. sinneed (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been warned by another editor that my reversion of the rollback of all our work was vandalism. I posted this in response: What was my disruptive edit? I assure you that restoring the deleted article flags is not vandalism. While restoring flags is not exempt from 3rr, it is not vandalism. I must tell you that your lack of understanding of how Wikiipedia works is inhibiting the development of this article. Please follow the process: warn, and explain. Then warn, and explain, then warn, and explain. THEN last warn and explain. THEN escalate. You have been warned repeatedly not to continue to remove these flags. Your statement that "Sikh Extremism is religious terrorism" is not supported by your source. You are applying the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.sinneed (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note that restoring removed flags is *NOT* an exemption from 3RR. I will continue to restore the flags, and the deleted content within the bounds of reason.

I fear that at least one of our editors does not understand Wikipedia very well, and this may be part of our problem. I would encourage patience and explanation.

The admin decision to stop the AfD was not in any way an endorsement of the state of the article. It was an observation that consensus was not being reached, and therefore the article would not be deleted. If anyone can add anything further, in a calm and reasonable voice, that might help our fellow editors understand that we need to move forward rather than simply reseting to the past version, that would be great.

sinneed (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this nonsense of warning Sineed (sic). --Sikh-history (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement "all Admin expressed a preference to keep the article" turns out not to be quite correct:
"Keep" is an outcome.
"Delete" is an outcome.
"No consensus" is an outcome.
Since it is much easier to create pages in Wikipedia, one could as well argue that any article that had not been deleted had a consensus of "keep". No... it just isn't deleted. The logic fallacy here is "If x and y have the same results, then x and y are the same." A nuclear weapon and a spade can both be used to make a hole... but they are not the same. "Keep" and "No consensus" are not the same, though they do have the result that the article is not removed. I again would encourage you to focus on the content, rather than the editors. Every editor's voice is important. Arguing that my voice or yours have less validity because we haven't been through an RfA indicates a real lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is. sinneed (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Article hijacked repeatedly by extremists hence reverted to verson supported by admin"
First, articles cannot be hijacked. Editors you don't agree with are making edits. This is a Good Thing.

Second, "by extremists" - please assume good faith. I assure you I am not an extremist. I am just a random editor who spotted vandalism, reverted it, and became interested in the article. Please stop reverting my work. Add to it, correct it, and explain. I assume you are not an extremist (in the other direction) but simply someone who does not want to proceed the way Wikipedia as a whole does. I accept that I may be wrong about how best to proceed as well. In fact I am *CERTAIN* there are better ways... I just don't know them. Maybe we can find one that will work. I will try. :)

Third, "verson supported by admin" indicates multiple misunderstandings on your part about what Wikipedia is and how it works. These are addressed on your talk page, and above.

Please join the discussion. Please stop throwing our work away. Please don't assume bad faith. I don't with you. I just don't agree with your behaviour. It is your edits that matter. It is my edits that matter. It is history-person's edits that matter. That the 2 of you think ill of one another is unfortunate, but is of no consequence to the article or to Wikipedia in general.sinneed (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Sikh separatists are receiving vital funding from the UK which could support renewed violence, police in India have told the BBC's File On 4 programme." at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/file_on_4/7263211.stm
seems to clearly support:
"The Chief of the Punjab Police, NPS Aulakh alleged in 2008 that supporters are transferring money to the militant groups via informal funding channels in the UK Sikh community"

The statement has clear attribution, is covered by the BBC, and unless retracted, stands. If there are sources that argue against the statement, they certainly could be added, with the countervailing opinion. I am quite capable of misunderstanding, but the line looks ok to me... though I dislike 1SPs.sinneed (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.”[4]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

"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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think your problem is with anything Sikh. Regards--Sikh-history (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry about my throw away remarks but I feel I am needlesly 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]