Talk:Khalistan Independence Movement/Rfc

RFC starts here

Should the article lede include Version 1 or Version 2 (oppose or support recent Khalistan movement resurgence / activity):

Version 1 : Oppose

In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab.

Version 2 : Support

Since 2017 Punjab police have arrested a number of separatist Referendum 2020 campaign supporters and militants. Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claims the movement's activity is backed by Pakistan's ISI, as well as Khalistan supporters in Canada, Italy, and the UK.

The movement is currently active in India and the Sikh diaspora, where there are protests on the anniversary of Operation Blue Star.

References

To summarize what we have established and agreed as per multiple source.

1. the movement reached the peak in 1980s. [Mike Rana. A Citizen's Manifesto: A Ray of Hope. p. 60.]
2. the movement petered out in 1990s. [Lewis, James R. Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 331. Retrieved 10 June 2018.]
3. India states that there is no resurgence. [1]
4. canada claims that it will not allow a resurgence.["India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada". The Sikh insurgency petered out in the 1990s. He told state leaders his country would not support anyone trying to reignite the movement for an independent Sikh homeland called Khalistan. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)]

• Sources claiming the movement is active [][][][] []
• Sources claiming the movement is not active [][][][][]

Arguements

Oppose Arguements

It is claimed that there is a "Resurgence" in the movement or "Movement is 'Active'" or "Movement has been revived". The sources presented so far for this claim are only talking about routine annual protests and regular information exchanges to thwart the Terrorists from succeeding. The other editor claims this as a proof of resurgence, while I consider it a clear example of WP:SYNTH Had there been a resurgence of the Khalistan movement, which is a strong statement to make, there would have been multiple neutral third party sources claiming the same. but so far, no solid sources have been presented in support of Resurgence. Disputed Content added in the lead recently that says There is resurgence of the movement

I have proposed to add this in the LEAD, to signify the recent events that are ongoing. As you quoted the HT article above it says Fears of uprising emerge this again is anticipation. and the article is Not stating the resurgence for a fact. After long discussion Elephanthunter has agreed not to use the word "resurgence", but He is still in favour of using the phrase "Support recently surfaced" which is analogous to giving a perception that the movement has resurged. None of the sources say that the Khalistan movement is active. What these sources are claiming that there are some incidents (arrests and annual protests) happening. Yes, these are happening and I am not disputing this, that these incidents are happening. What I am disputing is such incidents alone cannot be used as an arguement to claim a "resurgence" or "support recently surfaced". Some of the Khalistani sympathizers never stopped beliving and taking actions for Khalistan. These fringe activities (protests, arrests etc) never stopped since 1980s when the movement was at its peak. But in the 1990s the Khalistan movement lost the popular mass support they had among the sikhs. Which has led to the academicians and authors to claim the movement has petered out. Now regarding the resurgence, There is no source Claiming resurgence but there are several reliable source stating that "There is no resurgence",

• Is there a resurgence of Khalistani ext­re­mism, considering the number of rec­ent incidents and killings? A. There has been no resurgence. Indian Punjab CM
• "India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada". The Sikh insurgency petered out in the 1990s. He told state leaders his country would not support anyone trying to reignite the movement for an independent Sikh homeland called Khalistan. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help) Canadian PM

The lead cannot ignore such strong sourced and support a WP:SYNTH based on news of events by Fringe groups, the Reuters article even used the word "Fringe" for these groups. My opinion is we should only state the fact in the LEAD as it is without any synthesis or original research. WP:FUTURE anticipations for a resurgence cannot be placed in the article lead.

• Whatever is presented as a source for resurgence above is a collection of wishful thinking, WP:FUTURE anticipation, etc none are a solid justification.
• None of the above sources support a resurgence. The word must be deleted asap. As pure original research

IMHO Had there been an actual "'resurgence' of Khalistan movement", then there would have been numerous Third party sources, journals, books etc WP:SECONDARY sources, talking about the same in great detail as the main subject. The fact that there is none and one needs to dig so hard and yet could only manage to get passing mentions of future anticipation, speaks for itself. None of the above sources are solid enough to support the wild claim of Resurgence. I agree to the consensus of removing the word resurgence of the Khalistan Movement as a pure WP:OR

Comments

Please feel free to edit my lines above as you like, or let me know here what changes you want to see. --DBigXray 18:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually an RfC is placed as a section in the regular talk page, so regular editors won't miss seeing it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have never made an RFC before and I guess EH as well. Hence I made this draft, we will bring this to the article talk page, once both of us feel it is decently showing our position and is reasonably brief to be effective. Appreciate if you could also help in drafting this based on your experience with RFC. --DBigXray 18:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This format is surprisingly alright. Here are my only criticisms:

1. My position is that I just believe the movement is active. I'm not married to the narrative of a resurgence. That implies a lot more than I'm willing to argue for
2. The section with the summary would be rather difficult to maintain, since we'd likely disagree on interpretation. You should be allowed to bold things, but clearly they're not things I would bold. It might be better to let our arguments sit separately.

That's all --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)