The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This AfD is an utter mess. I've had to discount numerous opinions either way because they contain personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, weak arguments, citations of random "WP:" alphabet soup links with no clear rationale why this article in particular meets or fails that particular rule, etc. What remains is, at any rate, no consensus about whether this article should be kept or deleted.  Sandstein  18:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh extremism[edit]

Sikh extremism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Doesn't satisfy WP:CONFLICT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SOAP. All of its sections are actually part of Khalistan movement , Punjab insurgency and a play Behzti , hence those existing articles can be improved further instead of creating a new biased article, where name ofSikh religion is being attached with word extremism, i.e. Sikh extremism. This article nurture hatred/ grudges, hence violates WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND as well. It’s very creation is based on hatred against Sikh religion by certain respected Wiki editors who have a history of vandalizing Sikhism related articles See sections: ‘’Islam and Sikhism Vs 90.196.3.37 alias 90.196.3.246’’ , ‘’ip 90.196.3.246 (Talk)’’, ‘’ Sikh Fanaticism’’ Singh6 (talk) 08:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:WP:POVFORK. Keep --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess deletion is not the way to run away from Wikipedia's inherent shortcomings! --KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 08:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; WP:POVFORK. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - My own vote (Already highlighted the reasons behind this AfD).--Singh6 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You already nominated the article. You don't get to weigh in several times. Punkmorten (talk) 09:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep We have many articles on the extreme wings of movements and religions; they are difficult to write in a neutral way, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The previous two voters don't say what they think this article is a POV fork of: there is certainly more to this article than Khalistan movement or Punjab insurgency. It is ridiculous to claim that Sikh extremism is not notable, as the families of the Air India bombing victims will testify. "Not a battleground" does not mean that we avoid writing articles on controversial subjects. And finally this article has many problems with neutrality, style and other things; but being a bad article is not reason to delete it - it's a reason to improve it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Respected Sir, Air India Bombing incident was part of Khalistan movement as well. Further it is still not clear that who actually executed this attack, Indian agents (to counter sympthy gained by Khalistan movement in the west^[1][2], or by Khalistani militants who wanted to attack Indian targets to harm it financially^[3]. Vicitamizing the name of a whole community in this kind of uncertainty is not fare. We can improve the existing articles. Please read the provided references and please reconsider your vote.--Singh6 (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respected sir, the rest of the world does not know much about the Khalistan movement. But it does know about Sikh extremism. Take for instance this article [1] which refers to Sikh terrorism but not Khalistan. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Respected Sir,This link does not use word Sikh extremists either, But you did not object to its inclusion at all. So, kindly avoid speaking on behalf of the whole world.
• Word Khalistan only on google search gave 1,36,000 hits and when I filtered out words "Extremist, Extremists, Extremism" it still had 1,10,000 Google hits.
• Word Khalistan only on Google Book search got 1004 hits and when I filtered out words “extremist , extremists and extremism, it still had 940 Hits.
• So please do not say that the world does not know much about Khalistan, and it knows this topic by word "Sikh Extremism" better. Every single incident mentioned in this article belongs to Khalistan movement, Punjab insurgency and Behzti which are already there in Wikipedia. Please read this version of this article, I have re-structured it here to help you and all other respected wiki editors to understand its contents better. Respected Sir, Kindly accept the truth and kindly re-consider your vote to Delete --Singh6 (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need an overview article, looking at the links between these three. (P.S. Please do no embolden the word delete when you are simply using it in a sentence and have already expressed your view elsewhere). DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Respected Sir, How many overview articles would you need for existing political article Khalistan movement, its pre and post history ? --Singh6 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; - Issues: WP:V, WP:POVFORK, WP:NOR and propaganda. Article is amplification of events with POV propaganda to such an extent that it victimizes the whole community for events which are not even certain to have been done by a Sikh. Air India Bombing itself is a contested issue, see Soft Target (Book). Moreover, its a WP:POVFORK of Khalistan movement or Punjab insurgency trying to propagandize the movement as religious intolerance and extremism which is not true if the other side is also heard. The underlying claim of the article itself is "unverifiable" (violates WP:V) and contains "original research" (violates WP:NOR). The starters and supporters of this article have made a very absurd argument at times - that similar articles exist for other faiths so should for Sikhism. At times, it even feels that the whole inspiration of article is the same. Even the title does not justify to be warranted on Wikipedia. "Sikh Extremism" would mean that the religious scriptures are being used to justify the terrorism or extremism. This article should be deleted and the scattered events forked/copied under it should be expanded into the article Punjab Insurgency with the addition of other points of view as well --RoadAhead ^Discuss 15:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear roadahead I would request you to not broach subjects related to conspiracy theories about an unfortunate incident. The book is a piece of investigative/speculative journalism and offers very little proof for its claims and so I would request you to comment on the issue in hand and not digress from it. LegalEagle (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Legaleagle, as you have enormously contributed to article on RAW, it is surprising that you don't know about the involvement of intelligence agencies in Punjab Insurgency. M.K Dhar, former chief of RAW, has quite openly laid bare in the facts about Punjab Insurgency as has Sarbjit Singh in his book 'operation black thunder' as have some others. Don't pretend.117.96.151.76 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LegalEagle, I'm surprised by your stand; almost anything said by Army and GOI is fine but any different view is digressing? Would you consider including comments from a spy who was actually working during this time to Soft Target (Book) and any claim about sad Air India event? I'll cut my comments short on Soft Target (Book), but will like to stress again - wherever a sweeping claim is made to vitimize entire community one has to be specially careful.--RoadAhead ^Discuss 16:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anon and roadahead, I always try to not digress from the issue in hand but I believe that the preceeding comments necessitates a rebuttal. I have read Dhar's 'open secrets' and it contains nothing about complicity of R&AW with the tragic air india bombing. What dhar recounts is his own forays in canadian sikh community to understand the dynamics of the community (like visiting gurdwaras, meeting with informants on the happenings in pro khalistani groups, evesdropping etc.). He was the station officer for the south canada region and his responsibilities would include such forays. This comment/memoir of Dhar has been blown up in soft target (which i have read as well) as an evidence of indian intelligence agency's hand in blowing up an aircraft to malign canadian sikhs. I had once written a small review of soft target if other editors are interested we may start a debate on this issue at the talk page of the soft target book. LegalEagle (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalEagle, I was referring to Paszkowski not Dhar. Just noted your comments on talkpage of the book - will comment soon. --RoadAhead ^Discuss 06:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has been nominated for deletion under claims of Conflict of interest, non Notability and that the article promotes soapbox culture. I would go over the challenges one by one. First the problem of conflict of interest the wiki guidelines prescribe that an editor should always maintain npov in all his edits; The article in question tries to highlight a problematic aspect of religious extremism, there has been articles written on such issue before like the Islamic fundamentalism, [2] so it would be uncharitable to comment that the article on sikh extremism would be a pov; thus it seems that the purpose/aim of the article does not fall foul to npov standards of wiki (it is entirely different matter as to how information are presented in the article and whether such material are pov or not). Moving on to the second challenge under notability, as Singh6 has pointed out there are several articles on wiki on the matter which touch upon sikh extremism/militancy/nationalism as one may like to call it. Thus if we try to remove any mental block we might have and try to judge the matter dispassionately we would have to come to a conclusion that there were unfortunate incidents which was result of suspected violence by people who professed sikhism and tried to use religion as a defense especially during the peak of punjab insurgency, this subject has been issue of numerous debates and has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent. Hence at least there should be little doubt that the article is notable. Coming to the last point raised in the AfD which I thought was quite tricky was the question of use of wiki as a propaganda platform. Any article which tries to unreservedly connect a particular section of people with extremism then it is quite uncomfortable and one gets swayed about the real motivation of the editors who contribute to the article. It is undeniable that sikh militancy had affected India in not so distant past and evidences of sikh unrest may be found in blast at cinema halls in Delhi or the forcible shutdown of plays critical of certain practices, yet to brand a religion with extremist would be again taking the tab of npov too far. Thus I believe that the title can be bit mellowed down but overall the article merits a place in wiki. LegalEagle (talk) 15:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The nominator's arguments are irrelevant. How is this WP:CONFLICT? The article is not a POV fork. The article is an example of Wikipedia:Summary style. The articles on Khalistan movement do not contain any information about Sikh extremism in Canada or UK. There is Christian terrorism, there is Islamist terrorism, there is Hindu fundamentalism -- that doesn't mean that these articles violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND or WP:SOAP. Sikh extremism exists and is an encyclopedic topic. If the title is not suitable, it can be moved to an appropriate title. Doesn't satisfy WP:NOTABILITY? What a ridiculous argument:
  • 247 results on Google Books for the term "Sikh extremism": http://books.google.com/books?q=%22sikh+extremism%22
  • 450 results on Google Books for the term "Sikh terrorism": http://books.google.com/books?q=%22sikh+terrorism%22

  Also, the bad faith editing by orthodox Sikh editors (Roadahead, Sikh-history, Singh6, Irek Biernet) have made sure that the article hasn't been allowed to develop. An example of the bad faith edit: insertion of fact tags[3][4] even when all the statements were cited. Another example: Complete removal of all the content and 14 references that were added to improve the article and addition of bogus cleanup notices[5]. 59.164.187.149 (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User — 59.164.187.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - tagged by Singh6 (talk) 05:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and can we do something about the canvassing -- all orthodox Sikh editors are being informed by the nominator: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]

  Take for example this user who Singh6 invited to vote delete on this page. Special:Contributions/128.235.234.200. This user has never contributed to the article in the question. What are his only contributions: "FUCK HINDUSTAN" (multiple times), "HINDUSTAN WILL DIE" etc. Now if this is not bad-faith editing, what is? 59.164.187.149 (talk) 16:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respected 59.164.187.149, please do not forget that the editors supporting this article/voted to keep this article were also informed, Please see - here, here, here and here.--Singh6 (talk) 06:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, Sikh-history is a good editor, and actually works for NPOV on many pages, and was talking about keeping the article and adding more reliable sources from professors from U.S, U.K, and India instead of third handed sources and extremist sites. I disagree with Singh6 in trying to bring in Sunny, Singhls, and the IPs, as 2 of them basically admitted they are extremists and have left wikipedia. The only reason I can think of why he would invite them is that they're members on the Sikh wikiproject in which this article would fall under. Irek hasn't said whether he's a Sikh or not, for all we know, he's Jain. If he happens to edit wikipedia articles on Sikhism, it might be he knows some facts about Sikhism. I'm Atheist, was raised a Hindu, but I know some facts about Sikhs.

I don't see any conflict of interest, except that the creator of the article was under certain IPs that was vandalizing the Islam and Sikhism page because it was against Islam, despite it was only verses from the Sikh holy book talking about Islam, and was nearly banned. But otherwise, I don't see any conflict of interest. Deavenger (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or name Change. I think the article should be merged with some other article that covers the same topic like possibly the Khalistan, Khalistan movement, or Punjab Insurgency page. Or possibly a name change, to fundamentalism. Deavenger (talk) 16:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.It doesnt 'essentialize' anything; there are articles on Hindu Fundamentalism, Islamophobia and Neo-Con Evangelical groups, the same argument applies to all faiths, and I have to say that the fundamentalists are always the first to challenge/undermine/manipulate the validity of the fundamentalist 'tag' to their respective faiths. We know it exists as has been investigated by journalists, who have had death threats against them - we know these terrorist groups are banned by EU, US Governments Satanoid (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khalistan does not exist, the play Behzti in 2004 is as much part a dark side of Sikh history as it is part of the History of Theatre, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression; terrorism on the other hand is an issue we all have to deal with no matter how uncomfortable it is. Terrorism or extremism it is not confined to one ideological system but includes Sikhism as well. The issues of attacks against the media, politicians, journalists, playwrights and civilians (as was witnessed before and after 1984 in and outside India) deserves to heard and classified. The idea that Sikh Extremism does not exist is pathetic Satanoid (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This gobbledygook did not make much sense. Did you note that UK Sikh organization had already issued notice expressing no endorsement of violence against the playwright and that the identity of people who have allegedly issued threats is not known? (...or not verifiable yet?) The British Sikh Consultative Forum (BSCF) had already issued statement at the time telling these threats against Bhatti "have no endorsement from Sikh community". It is unreasonable to allege that the "Sikhs" issued death threats ...more absurd is to create blown up articles on wikipedia alleging on entire Sikh society. Coming to the play and claims of freedom of speech, it should be noted that "freedom of speech" and "responsibility" come in the same package; one is not expected to enjoy one as absurdly as one could and neglect "responsibility" altogether. When Prince Harry wore Nazi uniform in a costume party the UK media was outraged and included several news items criticizing Prince Harry; the prince came out with an apology later. Daily Star called Harry "fool in the crown" (news link) and the whole world joined to criticize Harry for his "ill-judgement" (news link20. As for "The Gaurdian" (newspaper which went onto printing several articles potraying Bhatti as a "Sikh playwright" and endorsing her act) here is what it wrote on Prince Harry's Nazi uniform episode. Similarly, the protest from the Sikh community are that Bhatti's play is an unethical act of deliberately raking controversy. If one looks for moral of the play (which according to Bhatti is for good of Sikh community) and see her choices of depiction, it would not be difficult to find that the choices are rather unwarranted and synthetic. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 07:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We know the article is WP:POVFORK. Also user 59.164.187.149, who supports keeping this article is strongly 'In Conflict of Interest' with the subject as he made the following statement. "I've lost my family members in violence by Sikh extremists and Hindu extremists in two different incidents, and I hate them both". Also the subject is sub-part of Khalistan, a political movement not a religious movement 117.96.151.76 (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User — 117.96.151.76 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - tagged by Dekisugi (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A bad faith tag added by User talk:Dekisugi while cunningly avoiding similar tag for new user 59.164.187.149 only because both of them had cast similar "Keep" votes. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 117.96.151.76 is located in City of Ludhiana, Punjab, India and it is several hundereds to thousands of miles away from the cities of 4 out of 6 listed IP addresses who voted over here so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Last time I checked subjective arguments such as WP:IDONTLIKEIT + WP:ADHOM lend little wheight to the outcome of the debate. Care to expand a little on why exactly this subject does not merit its own article, rather than regurgitating previous arguments? --Flewis^(talk) 09:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - As an editor with an impartial view to the issue, I believe that such an article should exist. I listed my thoughts on the issue a few days ago here. The bottom line is, as distasteful as this subject may be to some editors - it is still an essential encyclopedic topic. This article will need a lot of work. This article will need an extensive peer review to eliminate any npov concerns. This article can describe the issue from a factual, well sourced and neutral point-of-view. Deletion, however will achieve none of this. --Flewis^(talk) 08:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, after much consideration, I decided to change my thing to keep. However, a name change I think is necessary to change to Sikh Fundamentalism, and to do a massive rewrite using Reliable sources and using NPOV views.Deavenger (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:POVFORK, WP:CONFLICT, WP:SOAP - This article is victimizing Sikhism. The complete text of this article belong to Khalistan movement, Punjab insurgency and one play Bezhti. Khalistan related information is first being distorted, then divided into different country wide sections in this article to mis-represent the facts and to humiliate Sikhism. --76.241.24.138 (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User — 76.241.24.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - tagged by Dekisugi (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A bad faith tag added by Dekisugi while Cunningly avoiding similar tag for new IP 59.164.187.149, because both of them had cast similar "Keep" vote. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 76.241.24.138 is located in City of Riverbank, California, 95367, USA. This user does not share its geographical location (whole state) with any of the listed IP addressed who voted over here so far.

• Delete - This article is clearly written in bad faith and needs to be deleted. It seems like the sole intention of writer(s) of this article is to tarnish the Sikh philosophy. That's why the author(s) go to the extent of calling Sikh principles as 'idiosyncratic'. I don't see any reason why Wikipedia should allow someone to tarnish any religion on the planet. Moreover, as the article defines Sikh Extremism to be religioius terrorism I felt compelled to check the Wikipedia page for 'Religious Terrorism' to check how accurate this categorization is against cross-reference with the same source (the source being Wikipedia itself). I'll take a line from the article on religious terrorism - "According to Bruce Hoffman, to be considered religious terrorism the perpetrators must use religious scriptures to justify or explain their violent acts or to gain recruits and there must be some sort of clerical figures involved in some leadership roles." Having lived in Punjab for the most of my life, I didn't see any 'perpetrator' quoting the Sikh religious scripture to justify their acts. Nor did I see any clerical figures, the Sikh high priests, being involved in leadership roles against laws of the land. Not only this, a learned reader would find that the holy book of Sikhs doesn't contain anything that could be used to justify religious terrorism. I hope that Wikipedia editors would make the best use of reason and logic and delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.246.246 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User — 68.163.246.246 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - tagged by Dekisugi (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bad faith tag added by Dekisugi while Cunningly avoiding similar tag for new IP 59.164.187.149, because both of them had cast similar "Keep" vote. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 68.163.246.246 is located in City of Weston, Massachusetts, USA. This user does not share its geographical location (whole state) with any of the listed IP addressed who voted on this page so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Honestly, any learned reader who reads any of the religious books like Vedas, Koran, Bible, will know that it doesn't justify religious terrorism, like the though shall not kill. Plus, Bhindranwale was once a religous missonary, and wielded lots of political power. Deavenger (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Deavenger, If someone was 'a religious preacher prior to becomming a huge polical figure' does not mean that his religion has extremism in its roots. Please do not forget that the seventh President of India Giani Zail Singh (a Sikh) was educated in a Sikh Missionary college and had studied Sikhism's religious book Guru Granth Sahib^[4][5] and he was also a religious preacher prior to becomming huge politician and later, President of India. I again request you to please change your decision because, as this editor has mentioned, it is not a good faith article. This article is mis-representing Khalistan, (a political entity) related material and its support from different geographical parts (Countries) as a Religious terrorism/extremism only, which is simply to spread hate against one particular religion. It's text is simply another form of a concept on which Wikipedia already has an article. Every single incident mentioned in this article belongs to Khalistan movement, Punjab insurgency and Behzti which are already there in Wikipedia. Please read this version of this article, I had re-structured it here to help you and all other respected wiki editors to understand its contents better. Kindly change your decision and lets build the existing political and single stage play articles into NPOV form. With sincere Hope--Singh6 (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of how the article was written. However, I believe users like you, Flewis, DJ, KnowledgeHegemony, Legal Eagle, and Sikh-history can turn this article around and actually make it a real article instead of copying parts from Behzti, Khalistan, etc. Deavenger (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deavenger, Thanks for putting faith in me. I have gone through Civil Services Examination, 'have done 16 hours/day study in History including Indian History, Khalistan movement, Gandhi etc. Sikhs are a minority Religion in India. Sikh's demand for Khalistan is a political^[6]demand and not religious. E.g. Sikhs even sided with Mahatma Gandhi (a Hindu) and other Indian leaders to get Independence for India, and eventhough Sikhs were 1.9% of Indian Indian population only, their secrifice in Indian Independence struggle stood at more than 80%^[7] AND they were never called Extremists. They got cheated from historical promises^[8] once Mahatma Gandhi died. Their first extremely peaceful struggles was Punjabi Suba (a Punjabi speaking state regardless of any religion), - Eventhough Indian states were re-structured based on language, but Sikhs had to do several years of extremely peacefull struggle to get a single Punjabi speaking state. Their next extremely peaceful struggle was "Dharam Yud Morcha", asking for more rights for all Indian states (regardless of religion). Respective Indian Governments discriminated Sikhs to such a level they their peacefull and democratically elected governments were dismissed atleast seven times by Indian Governments^[9]. It is strange that on one side, majority religion of India honour Sikhs sacrifices to get them independence, by installing their statues (SeeBhagat Singh) in Parliament of India and on the other hand when some Sikhs oppose their rule and 'want to get independence from india itself, by the same means which Bhagat Singh used, then the same Indians love calling them extremists. But! In actual, it's all a political struggle for a political entity, i.e. Khalistan. Please come back and 'avoid siding with another historical mistake. Lets vote against this hate. II will not let my hope die..--Singh6 (talk) 08:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you tacticly agree that "Sikhs oppose their (majority religion of India) rule and want to get independence from india itself, by the same means (extremism)". Just to add to/complete your data about the sacrifices made by sikhs to indian freedom struggle, the current Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, and the Deputy Chairman of the Indian Planning Commission Montek Singh Ahluwalia are sikhs, Sikhs make up 10–15% of all ranks in the Indian Army and 20% of its officers,^[10] whilst Sikhs only forming 1.87% of the Indian population, which makes them over 10 times more likely to be a soldier and officer in the Indian Army than the average Indian.^[11] The Sikh Regiment is the highest decorated regiment of the Indian Army,^[12]. Please dont make self contradictory statements; if sikhs had a demand for independent homeland and they sought to achieve it by extremist means then the article in question has got notability as well as npov basis. Further please keep your personal view of what is right and wrong out while debating on any topic in wiki. LegalEagle (talk) 15:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalEagle You are now saying, "...if sikhs had a demand for independent homeland and they sought to achieve it by extremist means then the article in question has got notability as well as npov basis." (emphasis mine). This argument from you is an example of '''Ignoratio elenchi''' fallacy as "demand for independent homeland" is article Khalistan and Punjab Insurgency whereas "the article is question" for AFD is "Sikh Extremism". You are also falsely associating two different topics in your support. However, this comment from you states that this article is in fact a WP:POVFORK of Khalistan. Hence, you have further supported the "Delete" view of many other editors in this ongoing AFD discussion. Regards, --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 19:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete -- WP:POVFORK -- No need to combine three wikipedia articles, two political -->Khalistan movement & Punjab insurgency, and the third one related to a protest by 400 people (only) against play Behzti to target other religions. We should protect wikipedia from fundamentalists/extremists who try spreading hate/propaganda by creating such baseless articles. It is better to work on three existing articles, i.e. Khalistan movement, Punjab insurgency and Behzti instead of creating another one, only because its very name give extreme happiness to Anti-Sikh fundamentalists. As far as I know, Sikhism has never hated other religions. It has protected Hinduism from Muslim invaders and Sikhs did not do any discrimination against Muslims while ruling Muslim majority states of today's northern India and northern Pakistan^[13]. Sikhism, Christianity are under attack from Hindu fundamentalists now a days who want to bring adherents of Sikhism^[14][15] and Christianity^[16][17] back to Hinduism, and hence these hateful articles. Article Sikh extremism does not have any base. My vote is - Strong Delete --Beetle CT (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why are users being invited to multiple delete(s)? The two above individuals Zafarnamah and Beetle CT alias Irek Biernet had edit warnings not to mention Ghost users that haven't contributed much else! Its worth pointing out NOW that Singh6 and others want the Behzti article to be deleted as well (some four years after the incidents (patterns of Wikipedia terrorism ?) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Behzti&diff=prev&oldid=250889802 I think neutrality rests with Flewis, DJ Clayworth, KnowledgeHegemony and LegalEagle. Thanks Satanoid (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And you also have had multiple edit warnings. Not to mention that the user who gave an edit warning to CT is a banned user who has had a history of causing Edit wars and was banned for being a confirmed sockpuppet of Hkelar. Deavenger (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see any POVFORK from the other articles in here. This article summarizes what the sikh extremism and especially in Canada where the term is coined. There are plenty reliable sources to support WP:V. So, why delete? Dekisugi (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Why because the article was not created in Good Faith. Look at the previous history of the person who created. In terms of the internet the creator would be termed a forum troll. In addition to this the references are poor; most references are {POV}; the person who created this article has a history of vandalising Sikh based articles ; the issues in this article are covered in other articles such as Khalistan movement, Punjab insurgency or Behzti etc. --Sikh-history (talk) 15:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Not created in good faith' is not a reason to delete. The current version bears little resemblance to the original version, and can be improved further if necessary. It doesn't matter why it was created, it's whether the subject is an appropriate one for Wikipedia. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User talk:DJ Clayworth, What are you saying over here?. Please take a re-look at out discussion below your vote and please do not forget that once I proved that Sikh extremism and Khalistan movement etc areticles are same then you were able to come up with this sentence only "Maybe we need an overview article". How many overview articles would you need for existing article Khalistan movement and its history ? --Singh6 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; WP:POVFORK The article has NO original research AND is not written with NPOV. There is no verifiability present in the sources to show that Sikh Extremism exists as a movement or religious ideology. The POV of this article is more based on speculation. Princhest (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually plenty of evidence that Sikh extremism exists. And Wikipedia:Original research is a bad thing. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Princhest can you please explain to me as to why you consider this article to be povfork, I agree with you that some portion may be improved to satisfy wider npov but that does not need to be the only/sole reason for deletion of the article. And I believe that wiki specifies that there should be no original research so by stating that "The article has NO original research" it seems that you tacticly support for keeping the article. Please do explain your arguements. LegalEagle (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremism is an ideology on a social or political spectrum either too far to left or too far to the right WITH a mandate. What is missing here is the public mandate. It is POV to base it on a speculation. We can't conclude it is “Sikh extremism” without any sourced ideological mandate from a single Sikh party that is considered too far from the center. It is pure speculation to think otherwise and this speculation can be covered under Sikh Khalistan movement. I was referring that the article has no original mandate present from any Sikh orgs/parties/groups that should compel us to believe that there is an ideology of "extremism" too far too the right from the moderate Sikh center. We can’t base a conclusion based on random acts of individuals, there needs to be an evidence of mandated ideology.To do so would be a personal POV, in this case especially the article is solely written in bad faith to perpetuate a Propaganda. Princhest (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if I may distill our arguements, the article would be worth keeping if it is proved that there are/were some organised sikh orgs/parties/groups who believed in extreme ideology? LegalEagle (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please share the mandate of the Sikh organizations you claim is extremist. Please also share the Moderate Sikh mandate since we can't know which falls where without comparing the two. Princhest (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi as per their activity records one may categorise the following organisations as extremist (but you may always argue that it is my pov) Babbar Khalsa, Bhindranwala Tigers Force of Khalistan, Dashmesh Regiment, International Sikh Youth Federation, Kamagata Maru Dal of Khalistan, Khalistan Armed Force, Khalistan Liberation Force, Khalistan Commando Force, Khalistan Liberation Army, Khalistan Liberation Front, Khalistan Liberation Organisation, Khalistan National Army,Khalistan Guerilla Force, Khalistan Security Force, Khalistan Zindabad Force, Shaheed Khalsa Force. For moderate sikh mandate i.e. organisations which espouses the true/proper sikh ideologies one may provide SGPC, SAD etc. LegalEagle (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input LegalEagle. I asked for the mandate of these organization and you still didn't give me that. As far as I know, there mandate contains an aim to form Sikh state of Khalistan. Is that meant to be called extremist? If that is so, then this is Khalistan extremism and should be covered under the Khalistan topic. There is no reason to fork out a topic that is speculated to be part of one phenomenon. Princhest (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - In it's current state the article is definitly hopeless and should be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.173.151 (talk • contribs)

• User — 117.96.173.151 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - tagged by Dekisugi (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bad faith tag added by Dekisugi while Cunningly avoiding similar tag for new IP 59.164.187.149, because both of them had cast similar "Keep" vote. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 117.96.173.151 is located in City of Delhi, state of Delhi, India.This user does not share its geographical location (whole state) with any of the listed IP Addresses who voted on this page so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Reason is because Sikh extremism or whatever name you choose for it, occurs within the parameters of Khalistan movement. It does not extend beyond that. And a search on google books make that clear that the subject is treated as a sub-section under Khalistan and or Punjab Insurgency, by scholars and historians alike. 117.96.144.140 (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User — 117.96.144.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - tagged by Dekisugi (talk) 01:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bad faith tag added by Dekisugi while Cunningly avoiding similar tag for new IP 59.164.187.149, because both of them had cast similar "Keep" vote. Also, per Whois, User Talk: 117.96.144.140 is located in City of Ludhiana, Punjab, India and it is several hundereds to thousands of miles away from the cities of 4 out of 6 IP addresses which voted over here so far. --Singh6 (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - The title of this article is essentializing an entire community of roughly 25 million Sikhs with the label "extremism" or "fundamentalism". If you want to be accurate and precise, which should be the goal in any scholarly endeavor, then, first define what you mean by extremism and then provide specific instances of that behavior by specific individuals and/or groups. Calling an entire community extremists is a bit extreme in my view. This is a new dialectic in the George Bush regime to use categories such as these to label entire communities, which include children who don't even understand their import. I strongly support the deletion of this article. Articles should be written on specific individuals and groups to describe how they conduct themselves--"Sikh extremism" or "Sikh fundamentalism" is too broad a brush with which to malign an entire community. Let's first delete this article and then focus on specifics not generalizations since they always hurt innocent people. Zafarnamah (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Vote (above) is available at Talk:Sikh extremism where editor has clearly typed Vote for Deletion in the edit summary. It has been moved to the correct location, i.e. Articles for deletion/Sikh extremism, This editor could not visit Wikipedia after casting his vote, hence leaving his vote at an in-correct page will be injustice with his vote. Editor has been notified --Irek Biernat (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Zafarnamah (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag User Zafarnamah had been inactive for 2 year 3 months (approx) and the first edit he makes after such long break is to vote for deletion of the article Sikh Extremism. Lest other users may feel that I am cunning (though I would love to be) I would like to state that I have voted for keeping the article under consideration, asked some uncomfortable question to Beetle CT and this is my first tagging inspired by Dekisugi and Singh6. LegalEagle (talk) 14:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LegalEagle , going by your logic should we also discredit the article starter and any of his/her views as this editor's first and sole interest so far is this WP:POVFORK article and similar attempts at another article which he/she created after this one? It will be better if you can focus on subject matter and not attempt at creating prejudice in this argument. Your comments can be viewed as personal attack on other editor. May I also point you to Wikipedia policy "comment on the text not the contributor"? --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 05:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:POVFORK - I am not the primary author of this article and I luckily came across it while following an extremist editor i.e. author of this article, i.e. User Talk: satanoid. I had a chance to read Sikh extremism and the original article Khalistan movement and 'found it a distorted form of existing wikipedia article Khalistan movement only. This bad faith article has been created by User Talk: satanoid to satisfy his own extremism and spread hate WP:POV against Sikhism only. It is necessary to go through his history to understand his actual motive behind creating such hateful article which does not make any sence.

• His initial Biography
• Here is the list of all the IP addresses (registered to Easynet Ltd, BSkyB Broadband) which he has used so far:

90.196.3.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.196.3.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.3.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

90.192.59.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Here he has mistakenly proved his link with one of above mentioned IP Addresses.
• He was blocked several times because of his same hatefull acts but wikipedia could not find a permanent solution so far.
• He is simply using his manipulation skills to spread baseless hate against a religion, which he hates, through this article. Remember, He can delete contents from an editor's talk page and 'can put the blame on the victim immediately afterwards. He, through Sikh extremism, is manipulating information from Khalistan movement in a similar way to spread hate WP:POV against Sikhism on Wikipedia. Khalistan movement was a political movement similar to Indian independence movement. Both of these came into existence because of major independence issues felt by certain citizens of their respective countries. --Irek Biernat (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Respected Sir, actually Wikipedia administrator User: Master of Puppets has told me that he can consider range block against these IP addresses if this editor keep doing, what he is doing now a days. --Singh6 (talk) 06:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, he has one more sockpuppet IP, i.e.

90.196.3.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
--Singh6 (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

Question for the neutral admin(s) Flewis, KnowledgeHedgemony & DJ Clayworth. Can we finally come to a fair conclusion on this subject. I would like to point out that there are variants of the 117.*.*.* octet IP's

user:117.96.151.76

user:117.96.173.151

user:117.96.144.140

and can we do something about the canvassing -- all NEW/anon orthodox Sikh editors are being informed by the nominator to delete (The admins were also asked, but knew of the articles' existence anyway)

It seems as if Singh6 has voted twice to delete this article Satanoid (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Satanoid, can you stop creating bad faith? If we go by your "NEW/annon....editors" allegation, the first one who will get discredited from this page will be you because you are as new as these anons and the article under question is your first on wikipedia. Also, you are often found indulding in ad-hominem attacks on other editors like you did above in your comments by first assuming and then addressing the religious affliations. --RoadAhead ^=Discuss= 16:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References in the talk[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.