Jump to content

Talk:Khalistan movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 849108434 by DBigXray (talk) Stop being ridiculous
Line 343: Line 343:
:::* Hindustan Times ''As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge''
:::* Hindustan Times ''As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge''
:::Also, stop bringing up [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. It's getting old. You have almost no evidence to back up your opinions. I've got tons of news articles about this movement's activity at my disposal which you dismiss with vague and misleading statements. You're using books from the 1980s and 90s in a futile attempt to prove this movement isn't active today. What kind of logic is that? Clearly you are the one who doesn't like it. --[[User:Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk:Elephanthunter|talk]]) 21:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
:::Also, stop bringing up [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. It's getting old. You have almost no evidence to back up your opinions. I've got tons of news articles about this movement's activity at my disposal which you dismiss with vague and misleading statements. You're using books from the 1980s and 90s in a futile attempt to prove this movement isn't active today. What kind of logic is that? Clearly you are the one who doesn't like it. --[[User:Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk:Elephanthunter|talk]]) 21:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

{{collapsetop| [[WP:DENY]] Socks dont count.}}
{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
{|style="border-top:solid thin lightgrey;background:transparent;padding:4px;"
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px|link=]] '''Response to [[WP:Third opinion|third opinion request]] (Is there a resurgence of Khalistan movement)''':
|[[Image:Searchtool-80%.png|15px|link=]] '''Response to [[WP:Third opinion|third opinion request]] (Is there a resurgence of Khalistan movement)''':
Line 352: Line 352:
When the question of a "resurgence" is posed, it looks to me like it could be seen as a [[WP:SYNTH]] issue, though on shaky grounds. While "petered out" is defined by Cambridge dictionary as "to gradually stop or disappear", and if members of the movement are active, and it did stop or disappear, that clearly means it has re-surged, I didn't see any articles using this terminology. What I do see is the Hindustan times article ''As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge'' stating that "While the original Punjab separatist movement of the 1980s was rooted in Punjab, and thereafter spread abroad, a new version of the campaign is slowly emerging". Therefore there could be a debate on whether slowly emerging is equivalent to a resurgence. However, I don't see this as Elephanhunter's current position. He said, and I quote, "I would only like the article to reflect the fact that the Khalistan movement currently has activity". To me this seems indisputable. Ignoring the Hindustan times article and concluding just from that and the petering out that the movement has re-surged, might be [[WP:SYNTH]], but this is not a relevant issue. The movement is active and this should be reflected in the same paragraph that mentions the petering out. [[User:RadicallyNeutral|RadicallyNeutral]] ([[User talk:RadicallyNeutral|talk]]) 23:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
When the question of a "resurgence" is posed, it looks to me like it could be seen as a [[WP:SYNTH]] issue, though on shaky grounds. While "petered out" is defined by Cambridge dictionary as "to gradually stop or disappear", and if members of the movement are active, and it did stop or disappear, that clearly means it has re-surged, I didn't see any articles using this terminology. What I do see is the Hindustan times article ''As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge'' stating that "While the original Punjab separatist movement of the 1980s was rooted in Punjab, and thereafter spread abroad, a new version of the campaign is slowly emerging". Therefore there could be a debate on whether slowly emerging is equivalent to a resurgence. However, I don't see this as Elephanhunter's current position. He said, and I quote, "I would only like the article to reflect the fact that the Khalistan movement currently has activity". To me this seems indisputable. Ignoring the Hindustan times article and concluding just from that and the petering out that the movement has re-surged, might be [[WP:SYNTH]], but this is not a relevant issue. The movement is active and this should be reflected in the same paragraph that mentions the petering out. [[User:RadicallyNeutral|RadicallyNeutral]] ([[User talk:RadicallyNeutral|talk]]) 23:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
|}
|}
{{collapsebottom}}
*Hi, Thanks for your kind third opinion. As you can see in my version below that was reverted,
*Hi, Thanks for your kind third opinion. As you can see in my version below that was reverted,
{{talkquote|In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab.<ref name="HT_New2018">{{cite news|title=New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/a-new-brand-of-sikh-militancy-rears-its-head/story-JH3XbAGk6sSxlYrVEDyISK.html|accessdate=27 April 2018|publisher=Hindustan Times}}</ref>}}
{{talkquote|In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab.<ref name="HT_New2018">{{cite news|title=New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media|url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/a-new-brand-of-sikh-militancy-rears-its-head/story-JH3XbAGk6sSxlYrVEDyISK.html|accessdate=27 April 2018|publisher=Hindustan Times}}</ref>}}
Line 361: Line 360:


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.
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 as it is in the LEAD without any synthesis or original research. [[WP:FUTURE]] anticipations for a resurgence cannot be placed in the article lead. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>]]</span>'' 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
My opinion is we should only state the fact as it is without any synthesis or original research. [[WP:FUTURE]] anticipations for a resurgence cannot be placed in the article lead. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">[[User:DBigXray|D<span style="color:#DA500B">Big</span>]][[User talk:DBigXray|X<span style="color:#10AD00">ray</span>]]</span>'' 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


== i oppose your reverts to me edits on Khalistan movement ==
== i oppose your reverts to me edits on Khalistan movement ==

Revision as of 16:28, 6 July 2018

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification sough - Khalistan

During the Partition Punjab was split. Do Khalistan also seek the Punjab territory which is in Pakistan? Or just he portion in India.

Can the article be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.219.54 (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, both Indian and Pakistani Punjab are sought after as Khalistan. The fact that Khalistani terrorists also demanded Pakistani Punjab is the reason Pakistan later developed Cold feet. I have included this clarification in the article now. thanks for the comments. --DBigXray 11:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/referendum-2020-khalistan-divides-unites-sikhs-abroad/story-QBIfntRdW0zF7kVpw9XgmN.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Khalistan movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Information

To Those Whom It May Concern,

I personally believe that this article is very highly biased in telling the true story of khalistan period. According to what I know, the khalistanis were hardcore terrorist killers of innocents and they massacred entire families of innocents in their time and much of the innocent victims of these terrorists were from their own religion, Sikhism! So I personally believe that this article here is highly biased in telling the true story of the dark days of khalistani struggle. Atleast the website admin. needs to take a look at this article. I wanted to note down my opinion about this article so after knowing the true reality of khalistani terrorists, innocent people may stay away from such bad people. That's all. Thank you. User:Wjkk20 February 15, 2018. —Preceding undated comment added 08:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind comments. Please be specific what changes you would like to see in the article and what things to be added. Wikipedia article has to be WP:Neutral so if you feel it is onesided, do let us know what changes needed. You are also welcome to be WP:BOLD and ake those changes with valid WP:Verifiable sources--DBigXray 10:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 17 March 2018

Grammar: end of line three the phrase is "ESPECIALLY Canda" and not "specially Canada" Sani Dhlomo (talk) 10:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summarized the lead section

The article lead was extremely lengthy to be of any use and article had a tag highlighting the same. After several edits, I have moved the irrelevant details into the article subsections and summarized the content in 2 paragraphs. I have also added an update as of 2018. I would request the future editors, not to add too much material into the lead. thanks. --DBigXray 19:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being downplayed in India

Hi Elephanthunter, Can you please explain me to where do the source that you included mention that the movement is being "downplayed" in India or even hint at it. This is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on your path. Plus the other content you added is being given too much WP:WEIGHT to be in the lede. It can be included in the article in the appropriate section. We can discuss the wording of that here before inclusion. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamgerber80, the lede was WP:SYNTH. Police are actively arresting and torturing Khalistan supporters, and warning other countries about pro-Khalistan sects. The evidence of this movement's activity is, quite frankly, overwhelming. But the lede said "the movement is no longer of significance"? I mean, take a look at the citation. It's one politician saying the movement is "no issue", amid debate on whether Khalistan ideologues should even be allowed to spread their point of view. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find it especially interesting that you have no problem with one politician's offhand comment being taken out of context to make the movement look dead, but when other sources say the movement is active it's WP:WEIGHT? Please. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:58, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada PM in lead

In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab.[1] Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claimed the recent extremism is backed by Pakistan's ISI and "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK.[2] There is some support from fringe groups abroad, especially in Canada but the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared that his country would not support the revival of the separatist movement.[3]
— [[User:DBigXray added with dif [4] and supports this version ]]

References

  1. ^ "New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
  2. ^ Majumdar, Ushinor. "Sikh Extremists In Canada, The UK And Italy Are Working With ISI Or Independently". Outlook India. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  3. ^ "India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada". Reuters. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=844951421&oldid=844951219&title=Khalistan_movement&type=revision

The statement of Canada PM is added in lead as it is an important declaration of the National Policy and Canada's view point of this movement. please check WP:WEIGHT and WP:LEAD. That fact that it is there in the article body below is not enough justification to remove it from the Lead which is a short summary of the article. --DBigXray 09:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a statement of national policy so much as an assurance to Singh himself, who had repeatedly accused Canada of supporting the Khalistan movement. We can have it in the lede under two conditions: 1) In the context of said accusations and 2) If we mention Trudeau said this to Singh himself. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You actually caught me in the middle of updating my reply to say that, if the Canadian Prime Minister was merely reassuring Singh, that means it is probably not content for WP:LEAD anyway. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to engage in civil conversation with you. Please just speak your mind an explain calmly. I've read and (just now) re-read the sections on WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. My point is, to quote Trudeau as if he was not responding to Singh's accusations misrepresents the situation. That's all. But further, that context changes the weight of Trudeau's comments. After re-reading WP:UNDUE I think it becomes less obvious that Trudeau's comments belong in the lede. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Elephanthunter Please discuss your changes here first. I think you do not understand some Wikipedia policies based on your WP:OR earlier. I am also awaiting your response on another page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Adamgerber80, it's disingenuous to make an edit and then ask that I discuss my changes first. Also, you can't just take a statement out of context and then claim WP:OR. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Currently you are changing a lot of content and not just moving it out of the lede. I am referring to your earlier edits that "the movement was being downplayed by India". Even now, where you have changed the mention of Sikh radialization (which does not violate NPOV) and changed the meaning of the sentence. Please discuss your changes here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We did have a discussion about the word "downplayed" just above, and I don't believe you responded to me. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was still awaiting your answer on the other page which is related to this. Also, please stop creating your own rules about NPOV and respond to the queries that have been raised. Please refrain from editing the page unless we have cleared these issues. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elephanthunter: Your edits are getting very disruptive currently and it seems your understanding of WP:NPOV is incorrect. Please discuss these edits here. And I did not follow you to this page. I have been editing and watching over this page for a long time (including 24 May, 19 May, 29 April, 22 April, 17 March, 7 March, 25 February to name the latest ones). Please look at the page history before you make baseless accusations on other editors. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamgerber80: you came here to make edits after attempting to remove Khalistan from List of active separatist movements in Asia. There you were censoring this group, making the argument they are "inactive" (which is false), and then when you claimed the group does not exist within India (even though Indian citizens are being arrested?) It was confusing, to say the least. And now you care about WP:OR, WP:LEAD, etc. but only when anyone makes any update that doesn't paint this group as extremist. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elephanthunter: I have answered to the inclusion of this on the talk page there. I am currently discussing content based on sources and Wikipedia guidelines. Unfortunately, it seems either you do not understand these rules or do not want to follow them making it a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Please discuss based on sources. Just because some India citizens have been arrested does not make an entire movement active again. This is where your WP:SYNTH comes in. On your point of militant and extremist, these are WP:NPOV words on Wikipedia and have been used across multiple pages and are supported by sources. Please discuss on these basis. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamgerber80: Just because the words "extremist" or "militant" are used on other pages does not mean those words are suddenly NPOV in all situations. You're pushing an Indian nationalist view pretty hard here, but Wikipedia articles should stay professional and neutral. Also, I am familiar with Wikipedia's rules. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Elephanthunter: If you are indeed familiar with the rules of Wikipedia then please explain to me how is militant violating NPOV here? If a WP:RS is supporting it, then it can be included. Wikipedia does not allow using the word terrorist which puts this in the negative light. Any movement which takes arms is referred to as a militant (I hope you get this). Also, please reply to concerns I have raised earlier on how you arrived at this movement to be "active" on the relevant page. Lastly, please do not attribute anyone to a view and treat everyone with respect (the same way I have treated you with one and not called you a particular side or the other). Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Elephanthunter: Thanks for re-reading the WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE again on my WP:Civil request. we will descuss the disputes in order. please respond immediately after the subthreads to prevent confusion.

Version 1 (DBX)

In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab.[1] Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claimed the recent extremism is backed by Pakistan's ISI and "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK.[2] There is some support from fringe groups abroad, especially in Canada but the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared that his country would not support the revival of the separatist movement.[3]
— [[User:DBigXray added with dif [4] and supports this version ]]

References

  1. ^ "New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
  2. ^ Majumdar, Ushinor. "Sikh Extremists In Canada, The UK And Italy Are Working With ISI Or Independently". Outlook India. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  3. ^ "India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada". Reuters. Retrieved 22 May 2018.
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=844951421&oldid=844951219&title=Khalistan_movement&type=revision

Version 2 (EH)

Support recently surfaced in early 2018, with some pro-Khalistan groups arrested by police in Punjab.[1] Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claims the revival is backed by a "foreign hand" of Pakistan's ISI, as well as "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK.[2]
— [[User:Elephanthunter added with dif [3] and supports this version ]]

References

  1. ^ "New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
  2. ^ Majumdar, Ushinor. "Sikh Extremists In Canada, The UK And Italy Are Working With ISI Or Independently". Outlook India. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=845065387&oldid=845064848&title=Khalistan_movement&type=revision

Dispute 1: the word "Militant" and "Extremist" vs "Groups" and "Supporters"

As I can see your reply above. It is clear that you consider the word "MILITANT" and "EXTREMIST" as non neutral. Please share your source supporting this claim (with link to exact policy and Reliable source). If you really are familiar with Wiki Policies this should never have arisen in the first place. Armed murderers and shooters cannot be mentioned in the article as mere Supporters. WP:NPOV does not mean Facts will be watered down in a motivated effort to make them appear more palatable. You should immediately go and read before responding Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content --DBigXray 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The movement's revival has plenty support the last few months. Your summary makes it appear as though the revival is entirely militant, and promotes that without mentioning police brutality and imprisonment of mainstream supporters. Amarinder Singh has painted Khalistan supporters as ISI-backed terrorists and censored peaceful support.[1][2] We need to take keep WP:NPOV in mind and take care not to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote state propaganda or censorship. --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Sikh Extremists In Canada, The UK And Italy Are Working With ISI Or Independently".
  2. ^ "Sikhs for Justice 'unfazed' by sedition cases over its call for referendum in Punjab".
  • Please WP:AGF we are here creating a Wiki article, Please dare not accuse others of propaganda. You seem to have not read the WP:RS page fully considering your claims while your own source says otherwise. You are clearly doing a WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Please read the title of the dispute here and focus on that, if you have other dispute on revival, feel free open another dispute section, Do not go off topic. Here as the title says clearly in this Dispute 1 section, we are talking about the correct choice of words as stated by WP:RS even the links you have posted mention them as Extremists being arrested. Your claim of adding "Groups being arrested" is a clear WP:SYNTH and gross misrepresentation of the source not allowed by Wiki policies. So Please come up with a source for your arguement and the redressal of this dispute, so far whatever links have been presented regarding this dispute mention the perpetrators as Exremists being arrested. As Wiki Editors we are expected to mention facts as reported is and not do a synthesis, ( did you read this ? Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content ) --DBigXray 10:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edits you made happen to contain state propaganda. You should not take my mention of propaganda personally. There are some news outlets that report on Singh's admittedly notable beliefs, and I do think that angle is worth mentioning (perhaps even in the lead), given sufficient context. As far as my sources, could you please indicate what makes them unreliable? I'm very aware of what constitutes WP:RS, and re-reading the entire article gave me no new insight. Seeing as how we are having trouble agreeing on anything but what we disagree on, I have asked for aid from dispute resolution. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you please explain your logic for why, if the revival is actually non-militaristic, we are off-topic? We are talking about the word "militaristic" as mentioned in the title. To me, that view is based on differing perspectives of how the movement operates. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said above the topic of the dispute clearly is the choice of words in the Lead section i.e. the word "Militant" and "Extremist" vs "Groups" and "Supporters". And I will keep my discussion concentrated to the topic under discussion as mentioned in the subheading. That the movement has petered out is already established by several reliable sources (see the section below) and Also mentioned as the WP:Consensus among the editors here in below section Talk:Khalistan_movement#Khalistan_suspended_from_Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization_in_1995 If you are going to dispute the Petering of the movement please comment in that section instead of mixing everything here and going off-topic. Coming back to the topic of the choice of words, You have still not answered or shared reliable sources supporting your content and choice of words. I have made my point clearly with sources, please re-check my reply above once again and respond to the point on the choice of words and your sources in support. --DBigXray 11:04, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute 2: adding Canada PM's Statement in LEAD

If you have really read the WP:LEAD as you say, can you explain (with link to exact policy and Reliable source) why you feel that CANADA PM statement about DENYING SUPPORT to revival of KHALISTAN does not deserve to be in LEAD ? --DBigXray 07:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Of course. Trudeau's comments were made in a meeting with Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh, as a defense against accusations from Singh. Singh has a history of accusing Canada of supporting the separatists, and had even refused to meet with Trudeau the previous year over this grudge.[1] If we only say "Trudeau promised not to support the separatists", as if there were some crackdown, or as if Trudeau wasn't literally just responding to a dude who accused him of the opposite, it is a violation of WP:BALASP under WP:UNDUE. What action has Trudeau even taken to make this WP:LEAD material? Why are we even talking about the Canadian Prime Minister in the lede? What's next, the UK's response? It's inappropriate because this is an article about Khalistan. Trudeau's diplomatic escapades are at least two degrees separated from that. I mean, it's honestly very interesting, but all of that information and nuance about Trudeau belongs in a section down below. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Amarinder Singh meets Justin Trudeau and Canada's 'Khalistani sympathiser' minister". Times of India. Retrieved 8 June 2018.
  • Your choice of words shock me, ( Dude for CM and PM ? really ). You have Quoted Policy statement WP:BALASP why ? is it a minor aspect ? Are you trying to infer that Trudeau and Amarinder discussion happened in a Mens toilet and whatever came out of it is garbage ? Please think about your arguement once more. Whatever statement was made from Tudeau who is currently the PM of the CANADA, is the official position of Canada as a Country and This statement is clearly quoted in the lead as Trudeau said. He is the Official representative of the Country Canada. Unless he categorically says that statement of "Not allwoing Khalistani Revival" is his personal opinion, your points will be valid. But No. His statement was LOUD and CLEAR, when he said his country would not support anyone trying to reignite the movement for an independent Sikh homeland called Khalistan. Even the link that you shared above in support of your arguement above says "Canada has been unequivocal, both myself, all my ministers, our government on a policy of one united India. We have, we have been very strong on that and we'll continue to be," said Trudeau . Does this ring any bell ? It is not like he came out of the meeting and returned back and after reaching Canada went back on his statement to say, he "supports Independent Khalistan", no he never rescinded his statements. This Canada PM's statement of Not allowing a Revival of Khalistan movement is Canada's Policy and he merely re-iterated it during the Visit to India and this will remain Canada's official position until there is another PM who comes and changes this and says the opposite. Canada PM declaration[1] deserves the place in Lead because of the Huge Sikh Population (after India) and the Several extremist incidents and support that Khalistanis got from Canada (e.g. Kanishk Plane Bombing happened from Canada). The fact that there are some Sikh people sympathetic to the Khalistani cause, does not mean Canada as a nation is asking for Khalistan. Canada's official statement on Khalistan hence deserves a space in the Lead and more details in the article body. if WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT it does not mean the fact becomes DUDE's TRASH TALK and should be ignored, You should have a valid arguement for taking it out of the lead. I am sorry to say this but your arguement of WP:BALASP and WP:UNDUE are not applicable here. --DBigXray 08:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "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)

Khalistan suspended from Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization in 1995

The article Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization mentions that Khalistan was suspended from the organization in 1995, and I'm checking around online but not finding any proof of that, nor explanation as to why that is, so if someone comes across such information, that would be good to add. Interestingly enough, Khalistan isn't even listen in the "former members" section of the UNPO's website, but I found one single .pdf on their site that appears to mention them as a member: http://www.unpo.org/downloads/Self-determination%20conference%201993.pdf

Just one interesting facet that it would be good to clear up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MatthewVanitas: This is interesting. I did do a quick search in google books since I assumed that something like this might not appear in a news search but found little information about its suspension. Most books also state that Khalistan was indeed inducted in 1993. But the website does not find any mention of Khalistan in its current members. This leads me to believe that either Khalistan was removed or left at some moment in time. I will continue to look a bit more on this. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "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.
  2. ^ Lewis, James R. Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 331. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  3. ^ "A leaf from history: The rise and fall of the Khalistan movement". Dawn. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  4. ^ Mike Rana. A Citizen's Manifesto: A Ray of Hope. p. 60.
DBigXray, you recently cited this conversation as consensus that the Khalistan movement has "petered out" in your dispute resolution description, and mentioned me in the summary (in violation of dispute resolution rules.) First off, whether the movement petered out was not the topic of discussion. This discussion started because MattewVanitas could not find evidence that the group was suspended from Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization. And even if we agree the movement petered out in the 1990s does not mean there is no resurgence today. There is a laundry list of evidence the movement is currently quite active, and the Khalistan movement's resurgence is both militant and peaceful:
  • Militant:
  • Jan 2018 - New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media
  • Feb 2018 - India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada
  • May 2018 - Pro-Khalistani groups planning to target Punjab police officers with ISI's support: Intelligence report
  • May 2018 - 2 Khalistan Zindabad arrested, part of Khalistan Zindabad, a sub-group of a terror module
  • May 2018 - How the Khalistan Liberation Force ‘planned and executed’ the murder of an RSS activist
  • Peaceful:
  • Jun 2018 Golden temple protest:
  • Jun 2018 - Mass protests erupt around Golden Temple complex as pro-Khalistan sikhs mark Blue Star anniversary
  • Jun 2018 - Operation Bluestar anniversary: Pro Khalistan slogans raised inside Golden Temple
  • Jun 2018 - Sikhs to announce referendum for independence of Indian Punjab
  • Apr 2018 - Sikh yatrees flash ‘Khalistan Referendum 2020’ banners in Nankana Sahib
  • Nov 2017 - 'Khalistan Referendum 2020' banners put up during 549th birthday anniversary of Baba Guru Nanak
  • Aug 2016 - Sikh group raises voice for freedom in Punjab, alleges police brutality

--Elephanthunter (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good Morning Elephanthunter, Before I respond to your above comment I need clarity on your position, so need this confirmation from you. Kindly answer.

  1. Do you agree that the Movement has petered out in 1990s. (Y/N)
  2. Do You agree that the movement has not yet revived at present (Y/N)--DBigXray 18:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Do you agree that the Movement has petered out in 1990s. (Y/N) The movement was suppressed in the 1990s, and is actively being suppressed today. The phrase "petered out" waters down the actions India took to keep Khalistan protesters from expressing their views. But as long as the police action against the Khalistan movement is mentioned, I find the phrase "petered out" acceptable.
  2. Do You agree that the movement has not yet revived at present (Y/N) I just answered this question above. The movement is abundantly active.
--Elephanthunter (talk) 18:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly understand that I am trying to build consensus here, so Clarify in Y/N. If in doubt feel free to refer the source and then make up your mind and get back. Based on your above answer, it looks like #1 is MAY BE and #2 Is NO, Is this correct inference of your reply? Please respond. It is easier to discuss, when I know your position clearly. You may have your opinions on what happened and what not, but ultimately, what goes into the article is what Reliable sources say, and not what you "think". The Statement that "Khalistan Movement petered out" is not what I have synthesized but based on multiple neutral sources neither related to India or Khalistan. [1] [2] --DBigXray 20:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "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)
  2. ^ Lewis, James R. Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 331. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
I understand that you are trying to build consensus. You are correct in your inference. #1 is MAYBE (Which is a YES, with the described conditions) and #2 is NO. It is currently active (and I reference again the abundant source material above.) As for Trudeau's statements, I don't think they are appropriate for WP:LEAD. The discussion of who is an ally to the Khalistan movement versus who opposes it is best left out of the lede, for all except those entities who majorly impacted the movement. One statement by Trudeau is notable to be mentioned in the article, but (again) it is not appropriate for the lead. Beyond that, Canada's position is a complicated discussion. There is the context of Singh's accusations[1] and the postponed anti-Khalistan motion due to Sikh protest (just months before Trudeau's statement.)[2] --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Singh, Surjit; Sharma, Anil. "Khalistan figures in Trudeau-Amarinder talks, Punjab CM hand=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/amarinder-singh-raises-khalistan-issue-in-talks-with-justin-trudeau/story-gHiDSlJZky04rWRyWr4cSJ.htmls over list of 9 Canada-based radicals". Hindustan Times. {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Text "url" ignored (help)
  2. ^ Bhattacharyya, Anirudh. "Canada opposition party postpones anti-Khalistan motion after Sikh protests". Retrieved 11 June 2018.

Kindly stay focussed on the topic of the discussion, whenever you are in doubt about the topic of the discussion, kindly refer to the subheading and then reply to the point on the 3 subheadings. I will ignore anything not to the topic of this sub heading. For Q1. I cannot move ahead with a MAYBE. it has to be a Y or N. Your response is amusing to me. that the Movement has petered out in 1990s This is either a fact or it is not. There is no such grey area. I have already shared my sources claiming it to be a fact which you seem to be opposing, if you are claiming that the movement did not petered out and continued as it is , I would need Neutral reliable sources saying that. none of the sources you shared above say what I am asking here. --DBigXray 08:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that both answers have nuance and require WP:BALASP. If we are going to move forward in agreement, we will need to settle on a summary that includes adequate context. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have clear disagreements on several points. and I would like to resolve them step by step. The settlement of the summary will obviously be the final step of this discussion. We are stalled here, because I asked a Question Do you agree that the Movement has petered out in 1990s. (Y/N). I have shared my sources. You refuse to say Yes and agree to it, and yet you are unable to present any verifiable WP:RS to back up your claims that says otherwise. How can we resolve this dispute without a source backing up your claims ? You should be well aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth --DBigXray 19:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resurgence / Is the Khalistan movement active

Editors in the dispute:

  1. User:DBigXray and
  2. User:Elephanthunter

Requesting third Opinion

Dispute is regarding Is there a "resurgence of Khalistan movement" As discussed in the section above an editor claims 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

Support recently surfaced in early 2018, with some pro-Khalistan groups arrested by police in Punjab.[1] Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claims the revival is backed by a "foreign hand" of Pakistan's ISI, as well as "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK.[2]

References

  1. ^ "New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
  2. ^ Majumdar, Ushinor. "Sikh Extremists In Canada, The UK And Italy Are Working With ISI Or Independently". Outlook India. Retrieved 8 June 2018.

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

  1. the movement reached the peak in 1980s. [1]
  2. the movement petered out in 1990s. [2]
  3. India states that there is no resurgence. [1]
  4. canada claims that it will not allow a resurgence.[3]

References

  1. ^ Mike Rana. A Citizen's Manifesto: A Ray of Hope. p. 60.
  2. ^ Lewis, James R. Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 331. Retrieved 10 June 2018.
  3. ^ "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)

Below is my opinion

  • We cannot claim out of the blue that the movement is active. Yes there are sympathisers active. Does it infer a resurgence of the movement. NO.
  • We already agreed above to add the statement that khalistan extremists are being arrested in early 2018. It obviously infers that these Kahlistani militatns still exist and that is all is needed to infer in the lead.
  • SOME PEOPLE never stopped supporting Khalistan separatist movement. Did it stopped the authors and media to claim that the movement petered out in 1990s. NO. Same fringe still support it so? Can it be claimed a resurgence?
  • Gurudwara in Canada prevented indian officials from entering into the gurudwara., blaming them of causing enemeity among sikhs. This is not even related to khalistan movement. does not mean a resurgence.
  • India gave a list of terrorist to canada and uk to take action. It has happened in past as well. Nobody claimed any resurgence. Fairly expected.
  • The khalistani supporters allege there is a resurgence. And broadcast the same over FM radio. Obviously they will allege. Clearly Not a reliable source. See wp:primary and understand that Radio advertisements are not considered as a reliable source for Controversial edits.
  • Annual protest on Blue star anniversary turned violent. The protest are annual movement and whether or not it became violent is trivial. As far as resurgence is concerned.


  • 8 is again titled "fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge", They are Anticipiating a rise. Not saying resurgence is there. cant be used as a Strong RS for resurgence either due to WP:FUTURE.
  • 9 Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s ongoing visit to India has made the Khalistan movement a talking point once again. nothing that says about the Resurgence. There was an Emergence of Khalistan Movement in 1980s in India and Canada, This fact is not contested. The article only re hashes the same. Interestingly this is the same event where Trudeau declared No resurgence [2] "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."
  • 10 This is WP:OPED that again anticipates that the movement may rise. The article among other things state Besides fund raising, many of these gurdwaras display photos of militants killed in Punjab conflict and observe remembrance days such as Operation Blue Star and the post-Indira Gandhi assassination Sikh massacres to keep the memory of the struggle alive. Internet radio stations and social media outlets catering to the Sikh diaspora are openly claiming the resurgence of the Khalistan movement. . This source again cannot be used for Claiming a resurgence.
  • Further Please note that Amarinder Singh is the CM of Punjab categorically stated that there is No Resurgence of Khalistan Movement to a direct Question from the interviewer here. Using his statement as a proof of Resurgence will be WP:SYNTH of another level.
  • 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.--DBigXray 13:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're framing my position using "resurgence" repeatedly. I am just arguing the movement is active.
Anyway, here is some recent news about Khalistan:
  • (2018) Khalistan protests across multiple countries[1][2][3]
  • (2018) Police crackdowns on Khalistan protestors[4][5]
  • (2018) India accuses Pakistan of "extending support" to the secessionist movement of Khalistan[6]
  • (2018) India sends out warning about about Khalistan terrorists[7]
  • (2018) Khalistan movement resurgence / uprising / re-emerging[8][9][10]
  • (2017) India and Canada discuss a growing Khalistan movement at G-20[11]
Even if some of the above events are annual in nature, I'm not sure how that hurts my argument.
But maybe you'll accept an alternative version:
Support recently surfaced in early 2018, with some pro-Khalistan groups arrested by police in Punjab.[12] Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claims the movement's activity is backed by a "foreign hand" of Pakistan's ISI, as well as "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK.[13]
Does this address your concerns? --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ali, Haider. "Mass protests erupt around Golden Temple complex as pro-Khalistan sikhs mark Blue Star anniversary". Daily Pakistan. Retrieved 25 June 2018.
  2. ^ "UK: Pakistani-origin lawmaker leads protests in London to call for Kashmir, Khalistan freedom". Scroll. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
  3. ^ Bhattacharyya, Anirudh (2 March 2018). "Canada opposition party postpones anti-Khalistan motion after Sikh protests". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
  4. ^ Sehgal, Manjeet. "Punjab Police to crackdown on pro-Khalistan elements demanding referendum". India Today. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
  5. ^ Sehgal, Manjeet. "Punjab Police arrests 4 ISI-trained Khalistani terrorists". India Today. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
  6. ^ "India lodges protest over Khalistan issue - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 29 June 2018.
  7. ^ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/list-of-canadian-operatives-handed-by-punjab-cm-amarinder-singh-to-justin-trudeau-5076443/
  8. ^ Bhattacharya, Anirudh (12 February 2018). "As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 25 June 2018. Among the reasons observers see for this trend of resurgence of pro-Khalistan sentiment in Canada is vote-bank politics. "Canada may be emerging as the epicentre of these radical elements."
  9. ^ SWAIN, ASHOK. "Have Hindutva forces in India reignited the Khalistan movement overseas?". Daily O. Retrieved 25 June 2018. The politics of "one nation, one religion, and one leader" by Hindutva nationalistic forces have provided the Sikh diaspora an opportunity to once again mobilise support at home for the cause of Khalistan.
  10. ^ Thomson, Stuart (16 March 2018). "Why Sikh separatism has re-emerged as a flashpoint in Canadian politics". National Post. Retrieved 28 June 2018.
  11. ^ Haidar, Suhasini (19 February 2018). "Khalistan factor casts a shadow over Trudeau visit". The Hindu. Retrieved 28 June 2018. Issues over the growth of Sikh extremist groups, especially those seeking a "referendum 2020" for the worldwide Sikh diaspora to vote on an "independent khalistan" have been raised several times in the past few years, officials told The Hindu, including when former Defence Minister Arun Jaitley met with Canadian Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi is understood to have spoken to Mr. Trudeau on the issue when the leaders met at the G-20 summit in Hamburg in July 2017, and in Manila on the sidelines of the East Asia summit.
  12. ^ "New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.
  13. ^ Majumdar, Ushinor. "Sikh Extremists In Canada, The UK And Italy Are Working With ISI Or Independently". Outlook India. Retrieved 8 June 2018.

When you say Support recently surfaced in early 2018, are you trying to claim that the Khalistan movement that has petered out in 1990s and dormant for more than 2 decades got up ? if so , you need to establish this first. as of now this "resurgence" or "recent surfacing of support" is not established. what you are claiming as support are annual incidents of protest which does not mean resurgence, see WP:SYNTH. Are you trying to claim that there were no protest 10 year back or 20 year back ? The point of contention here is the resurgence, PRotest does not automagically translate to resurgence of the movement as a whole. --DBigXray 17:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would only like the article to reflect the fact that the Khalistan movement currently has activity, and that India is concerned about such activity. The words "petered out" are ambiguous and might cause a reader to think the movement is inactive, making clarification necessary. Sikh separatists aren't holing up in the Akal Takht, but they are regularly protesting and being arrested. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • fortunately or Unfortunately Wiki articles are based on Reliable Mainstream sources and not on someone's Likeness or Dislike I am only interested in the article stating facts as presented by mainstream sources and not someones OP-ED or anticipations or Radio advertisements. By mean regularly arrested I hope you are implying in the past 30 years because thats what is happening and nothing new. For the benefit of all editors, Please present WP:RS sources for your claims when you give reasons on controversial edits on talk page discussion. --DBigXray 20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're really drilling into that single source. One source out of 13 total. First, the source says nothing of radio "advertisements". Where did you get the word "advertisement" from? Second, at least two other sources directly corroborate the article:
  • National Post Why Sikh separatism has re-emerged as a flashpoint in Canadian politics
  • Hindustan Times As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge
Also, stop bringing up WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It's getting old. You have almost no evidence to back up your opinions. I've got tons of news articles about this movement's activity at my disposal which you dismiss with vague and misleading statements. You're using books from the 1980s and 90s in a futile attempt to prove this movement isn't active today. What kind of logic is that? Clearly you are the one who doesn't like it. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request (Is there a resurgence of Khalistan movement):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Khalistan movement and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

When the question of a "resurgence" is posed, it looks to me like it could be seen as a WP:SYNTH issue, though on shaky grounds. While "petered out" is defined by Cambridge dictionary as "to gradually stop or disappear", and if members of the movement are active, and it did stop or disappear, that clearly means it has re-surged, I didn't see any articles using this terminology. What I do see is the Hindustan times article As Canadian gurdwaras ban Indian diplomats, fears of a new Sikh uprising emerge stating that "While the original Punjab separatist movement of the 1980s was rooted in Punjab, and thereafter spread abroad, a new version of the campaign is slowly emerging". Therefore there could be a debate on whether slowly emerging is equivalent to a resurgence. However, I don't see this as Elephanhunter's current position. He said, and I quote, "I would only like the article to reflect the fact that the Khalistan movement currently has activity". To me this seems indisputable. Ignoring the Hindustan times article and concluding just from that and the petering out that the movement has re-surged, might be WP:SYNTH, but this is not a relevant issue. The movement is active and this should be reflected in the same paragraph that mentions the petering out. RadicallyNeutral (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi, Thanks for your kind third opinion. As you can see in my version below that was reverted,

In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab.[1]

References

  1. ^ "New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media". Hindustan Times. Retrieved 27 April 2018.

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",

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 as it is without any synthesis or original research. WP:FUTURE anticipations for a resurgence cannot be placed in the article lead. --DBigXray 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i oppose your reverts to me edits on Khalistan movement

on what basis do you regard the sources i provided as "biased" or "unreliable"? why don't you remove the countless indian sources which are hardly reputable and should not be used as the basis for validation of any claims. so tell me, why are indian sources completely fine but others you disregard as blogs when they clearly are not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 2018 June 23 (UTC)

I have to agree with DBigXray. Said article was not from a mainstream news outlet with editorial control. Although if you do find a reliable WP:SECONDARY source that covers this perspective, please bring it up. WP:RS states that all perspectives should be covered, both major and minor. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

alright that one was clearly biased and i shouldn't have used that but the express tribune article is not biased so the information i derived from that source should stay on the khalistan movement page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gangadesh721, please note that "biased" is not the point. It is not a reliable source, as per Wikipedia criteria. This is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, I posted on your talk page a long time ago. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policies. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is not correct. The mentioned article published by The Express Tribune falls under WP:RS. It is a hiqh-quality mainstream paper with an editing staff. In fact, Pakistan's only internationally affiliated paper. There might be concern that the source is biased, but the guide for identifying reliable sources states clearly "Sources do not need to be neutral, unbiased or objective." --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 on what basis is it not reliable? for that matter, on what basis are the hindustan times and india today reliable especially given the context of the article which has to be taken into account as per reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also, there is nothing to suggest that the tribune india or sbs australia are unreliable sources, so the removal of the edits i cited with articles from the respective websites of these two sources should be reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gangadesh721 (talk • contribs) 08:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit that was reverted used a website, forpakistan.org. It has been explained to you clearly, but you misinterpreted the comment. Nobody said that Tribune India was not a reliable source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 4 July 2018

Edit fully-protected

The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist movement, which seeks to create a separate country called Khalistān (Punjabi: ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ, "The Land of the Pure") in the Punjab region of South Asia to serve as a homeland for Sikhs flourishing in the Indian state of Punjab, which has a Sikh-majority population and has been the traditional homeland of the Sikh religion.

Please change to

The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist movement, which seeks to create a separate country called Khalistān (Punjabi: ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ, "The Land of the Pure") in the Punjab region of South Asia to serve as a homeland for Sikhs.

Kindly remove the text from the first few lines in the LEAD that says, "flourishing in the Indian state of Punjab, which has a Sikh-majority population and has been the traditional homeland of the Sikh religion, This text was added by this edit [3] . requesting the removal as this is incorrect and source misrepresentation of the ref wrongly added by the new editor. DBigXray 18:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why this is a misrepresentation? Times of India confirms Sikhism is above 50% of the population in Punjab.[1] And wasn't Punjab part of the Sikh Empire? --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Census 2011: %age of Sikhs drops in Punjab; migration to blame? - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 4 July 2018. The percentage of Sikh population in Punjab has registered a decline from 59.9% to 57.69%, even though the total population of the community has gone up.
Reasons below
  1. The Proposed Khalistan Includes the whole of Punjab Kingdom and not Just Punjab India.
  2. The kingdom of Punjab did not have Sikh Majority.
  3. Homeland is already mentioned and is simply repeated.
  4. Due to the above this is a WP:Original Research and should be removed. --DBigXray 19:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yeah, I agree that part might be misleading. The Khalistan movement is related to the whole of Punjab, not just Punjab, India.
  2. The kingdom did not, but you're asking to change text related to modern-day Punjab.
  3. I agree the word homeland should not be repeated.
  4. I don't see evidence of original research here, just wording that needs clarified.
Suggestion: The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist movement, which seeks to create a separate country called Khalistān (Punjabi: ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ, "The Land of the Pure") in the Punjab region of South Asia to serve as a homeland for Sikhs. Punjab has a Sikh-majority population[1] and was at one point part of the Sikh Empire.
I believe this communicates demographics and historical context without injecting any WP:OR or misrepresenting the situation. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Census 2011: %age of Sikhs drops in Punjab; migration to blame? - Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 4 July 2018. The percentage of Sikh population in Punjab has registered a decline from 59.9% to 57.69%, even though the total population of the community has gone up.

No, I disagree. What is your logic for adding the extra parts. in your version above ? The proposed Khalistan is purported to be a homeland for Sikhs all over the world and not just Indian Punjab. Indian Punjab having a sikh majority is an irrelevant trivia and being added unnecessarily here. Khalistan includes Punjab kingdom which is a much larger area than the current Indian punjab. you here are supporting addition of unnecessary texts that does not acurately represent Khalistan. The below version free of the addition is quite accurate. The Khalistan movement is a Sikh separatist movement, which seeks to create a separate country called Khalistān (Punjabi: ਖ਼ਾਲਿਸਤਾਨ, "The Land of the Pure") in the Punjab region of South Asia to serve as a homeland for Sikhs. --DBigXray 20:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are fair additions of context as prescribed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style under WP:OBVIOUS. Most readers will not know anything about why Sikhs might want the Punjab region in particular as a homeland. The demographics and history give adequate context. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DBigXray. The Sikh majority of the Indian Punjab is WP:UNDUE here, because the proposed Khalistan is not Indian Punjab. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are fair to point out the Sikh majority exists only in Punjab, India, not Punjab, Pakistan. The demographics of Punjab are easy facts to obtain and not particularly controversial, and obviously the religious demographics are relevant to this topic. WP:UNDUE would only come into play if we push a minority view over others. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability is not the issue. We talk of WP:UNDUE for only verifiable statements. As noted in the policy page, Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. So, to introduce a factoid of Indian Punjab, you need to state how it is relevant to the topic. Moreover, in a LEAD, that relevance should be obvious to the reader. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
India and Pakistan Punjab should be mentioned separately because of political reasons, and to avoid confusion. It seems unorthodox and a bit WP:SYNTH to calculate demographic information for the Punjab region as a whole. The demographics are rarely published that way, and it would be like calculating overall demographics of Berlin before the Berlin wall fell. We should be clear the Punjab region is two countries with vastly different demographics and cultures. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By adding this UNDUE trivia Punjab has a Sikh-majority population and was at one point part of the Sikh Empire you are only confusing the reader with factually incorrect statement. Punjab (as far as Khalistan is concerned ) means Punjab Kingdom, You are trying to falsely imply that Punjab Kingdom has a sikh Majority population, which is factually wrong. I would have agreed with your reason above if Punjab of Khalistan meant Punjab (india) but it is not hence your arguement is moot. --DBigXray 08:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the user has issues understanding Wikipedia policies and has turned into a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regarding this and the three issues above (which did not get resolved at WP:DRN, maybe a RfC will help. There are multiple pages which haven been WP:STONEWALL by the editor based on pure WP:SYNTH of random newspaper articles. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like what, exactly? That's a vague accusation. Demographics information is not published in a combined manner, since Punjab literally split into two different countries. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have been explained multiple times that it is WP:UNDUE for the lede. The demographic situation of Indian Punjab has no bearing here. Khalistan included the historical Punjab region and the demographic information has already been mentioned on the page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the purpose of the lede is to summarize page content, but also include relevant context. The Sikh Empire is important and non-obvious. Also, you say "The demographic situation of Indian Punjab has no bearing here." In an article about a Sikh separatist group, the Sikh demographic of the location Sikh separatists lay claim to has clear relevance. Just give the reader demographics information for Punjab, India and Punjab, Pakistan. Why not? What position is being given undue weight? --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not ? beacuse (see my comment above) You are trying to falsely imply that Punjab Kingdom has a sikh Majority population, which is factually wrong. I would have agreed with your reason above if Punjab of Khalistan meant Punjab (india) but it is not hence your arguement is moot. Understand that, Khalistan does not mean Punjab India. next what ? you will add demography of Punjab Pakistan, Haryana, and HP in the lead, This is a laughable arguement. --DBigXray 15:46, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Khalistan_movement&oldid=849112835"