Talk:Khalistan movement

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)

• 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)

Setting up Automatic Archive as per default settings

Hi, I am planning to setup Auto Archive by Miszabot for as per the default settings on WP:Archive, if anyone has a concern or objection, please respond here. --DBigXray 17:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Done --DBigXray 11:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

i oppose your reverts to me edits on Khalistan movement

Socks blocked and sent to drawer, collapsed per WP:DENY

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) forpakistan.org is a Propaganda site and fails the criteria of WP:RS kindly do not use it as a source to add content on controversial articles. --DBigXray 19:01, 23 June 2018 (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) 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) 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) 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) @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) 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) 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)

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 [1] . 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)

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

References

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)

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 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)

References

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Canada PM in lead

In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab. 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. 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.
— [[User:DBigXray added with dif and supports this version ]]

References

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)

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)

• Kindly accept my request to read the page of WP:LEAD first, and then we can talk. Without you reading that page I an sure, this discussion will be futile.--DBigXray 16:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

• Please confirm that you have read the whole page of WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE today, even if you have read those in past. It is easier to to discuss when we have aclear understanding of the policy. --DBigXray 16:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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. 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. 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.
— [[User:DBigXray added with dif and supports this version ]]

References

Version 2 (EH)

Support recently surfaced in early 2018, with some pro-Khalistan groups arrested by police in Punjab. 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.
— [[User:Elephanthunter added with dif and supports this version ]]

References

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)

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. 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)

References

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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. 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)

References

• 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 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)

References

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)

@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)

• Thats expected. Per Foreign Media In the 1990s the insurgency petered out , --DBigXray 06:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
• This is also said by Multiple reliable sources. here are some more sources, --DBigXray 11:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

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. --DBigXray 20:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

References

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 and the postponed anti-Khalistan motion due to Sikh protest (just months before Trudeau's statement.) --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

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)

• Hi User:Elephanthunter I am requesting a Neutral Third opinion for the dispute whether the Movement petered out or not. I hope that should help us reach a quick consensus, based on the sources we both presented. --DBigXray 12:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

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. 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.

References

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

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

References

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 [3] "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)

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
• (2018) Police crackdowns on Khalistan protestors
• (2018) India accuses Pakistan of "extending support" to the secessionist movement of Khalistan
• (2018) India sends out warning about about Khalistan terrorists
• (2018) Khalistan movement resurgence / uprising / re-emerging
• (2017) India and Canada discuss a growing Khalistan movement at G-20

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. 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.

Does this address your concerns? --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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.

References

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 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. --DBigXray 15:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Singh is fighting these guys. You can quote him (which I'm fine with), but he's not a "strong source" from the NPOV department. Trudeau's statement is interesting because multiple news sources mention Singh boycotting meetings with Canada and accusing Canada of supporting separatists. Is Singh reliable or not? Did Trudeau change Canada overnight? I say let the reader decide.

And I've tried to make it clear that I'm focusing on the fact that this movement is active. To me, it appears uncontroversial. Even Singh didn't argue the movement is inactive. How can he possibly be arresting people from an inactive group? It defies logic. If articles say Pakistan's ISI is spicing up Punjab with salt and militant Khalistanis, whatever. I guess we could mention that possibility. If police in Punjab accuse Canadians of snapchatting their local Sikhs to radicalization, maybe that's worth throwing in too. But the movement is active.

I think what you were looking for was an alternate proposal for the lede, and maybe what I've thrown into the RfC will solve that. --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me as though you are confusing between Activity of a Gang or Module or terrorists vs Active movement. Movement can only be claimed when it has mass appeal. In this case there is no mass appeal. Arrest of Gang of 3 or 5 does not mean The Movement is active. Claiming activity of Gang as the Activity of Movement is the WP:SYNTH that I am trying to explain to you. Amarinder or for that matter no one else Said the Khalistan Movement is Active. None of the source you presented say that. --DBigXray 10:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Resurgence/Activity of the Khalistan Movement

Should the article lead state that the Khalistan movement is active/resurgence of Khalistan Movement. --DBigXray 10:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Versions

Version 1 : Oppose (No Resurgence of Khalistan Movement)

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

References
References

Version 2 : Support (Movement is active. Not arguing for resurgence)

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, with yearly demonstrations in protest of those killed during Operation Blue Star.

References
References

.

!Vote

• Oppose the mention of resurgence or active due to lack of Sources stating the same per WP:SYNTH (as Nom). Wikipolicies specially prohibits WP:ANALYSIS of news incidents. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.--DBigXray 10:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support movement is active. I am not arguing that it's in resurgence. Reminder to the person who closes this RFC that this is not a vote, but a survey for gathering opinions. A large number of people showed up to comment who are citizens of India, where this separatist movement supposedly does not exist. That should at least make you raise an eyebrow. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support movement seems to remain reasonably active. Definitely enough for the standards we've been using on the list of active separatist movements page (which this apparently has bearing over?). --Calthinus (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose It seems that both sides don't disagree that there is support for the movement, but there is disagreement over the level of support. The "Oppose" wording contends that the support is marginal, while the "Support" wording does not acknowledge any decline in support. In such a case, I have to lean "Oppose". The quality of sources on the oppose side is better, with multiple secondary and neutral sources asserting the level of support to Khalistan movement. On the other hand, the "Support" wording lacks any such neutral overview of the entire movement and leans on individual news reports of protests. The neutrality of a couple of references is also highly questionable due to the history of Indo-Pakistani disputes and Indian allegations of Pakistani support to Khalistan movement. The three sources provided by Elephanthunter under "(2018) Khalistan movement resurgence / uprising / re-emerging" are either opinion pieces or focus on impact of Khalistani support groups on Canadian politics instead of the movement itself. —Gazoth (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The statement would be WP:OR as there is a lack of reliable sources as discussed in below section. Orientls (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I must say that I'm not swayed by the arguments of supporters. None of the news reports provided by them conclude that the movement is active, and for this reason, we can't either. On the other hand, the citations provided by the other side say very explicitly that the movement is long dead. Kerberous (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Khalistani movement is not active. History of this movement itself shows that this movement has been long inactive. It will require clear reliable sources to establish it. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The requirement as stated that information needs established by the reliable sources that the movement is active is still lacking. This movement has been inactive for ages. Strong sources would be definitely needed for saying that it is an active movement. My Lord 17:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The user who made this vote was blocked [4] for abusing multiple accounts. --Elephanthunter (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose These assumptions are pretty half-baked and lacks the reliable sources that would back them. Accesscrawl (talk) 08:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Resonable wp:synth lacks sources& wp:notnews, seems like clamering of related remote selfpublished to low relevance sources to make this synthesis real! Shrikanthv (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose None of the reliable sources say the movement is active. 2 or 3 arrests are not significant to be considered a resurgency. Pratyush (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose none of the reliable sources confirm the movement as an active one. Sdmarathe (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support, the Khalistan movement is active with the impending Referendum 2020. Son of Kolachi (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - The movement is marginal for too long and we can call it inactive and no reliable sources have stated otherwise. शिव साहिल (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Leaning to Oppose (pinged by bot) - Frankly both the versions are no good. The Version 1 (labelled "Oppose") doesn't say very much. Chief Minister accusing Pakistan's ISI and Pakistani "categorically denying"... Yawn. Happens practically everyday. Not LEAD material. The Version 2 (labelled "Support") suffers from WP:Lead fixation. The Referendum 2020 needs to be covered, but there is absolutely nothing about it in the body. So, as per MOS:LEAD, it is not ready for prime time. We can't say "the movement is active" unless the reliable sources say so. Do you think Wikipedians can assess what it even means for a separatist movement to be "active"? Well, we can't. Frankly, it is not our job. Yearly demonstrations..? Again, a yawn. Honestly, I think you should junk both the versions, develop content in the body about the current happenings, and then come back with decent proposals. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Opening Arguement

Support Arguement

Given the differences between our RfC versions, I am arguing for two things:

• That the movement is currently active
• Fair representation of those arrested

Here are the facts:

• (2018) Khalistan protests across multiple countries
• (2018) Police crackdowns on Khalistan protestors
• (2018) India accuses Pakistan of "extending support" to the secessionist movement of Khalistan
• (2018) India sends out warning about about Khalistan terrorists
• (2018) Khalistan movement resurgence / uprising / re-emerging
• (2017) India and Canada discuss a growing Khalistan movement at G-20

I came across this movement when another user attempted to remove it from the List of active separatist movements in Asia. I think it's clear the Khalistan movement is active and belongs in that list. I'm not arguing there is a "resurgence". That implies more than I really care to argue about. Just that it's active.

The group is mainly focused on Punjab, India. Some of the government's response to this group is concerning. Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh said "Freedom of speech was enshrined in the Indian Constitution but separatists and hardliners and those propagating violence had lost any such right as they were rejected outright by the people of Punjab" His crackdown on Khalistan supporters is widespread. The Hindustan Times explains, "Police teams also conducted raids to nab more 'Punjab-based Khalistani activists', who allegedly assisted in spreading SFJ’s campaign whose full title is ‘Punjab Independence Referendum 2020’. Raids are being conducted in Haryana and J&K too." India's censor board also banned "Toofan Singh", which portrays this movement in a positive light.

There is currently a lot of propaganda at work in India. I believe it's paying off with the edits I've seen here.

Unlike DBigXray's proposal, I think you'll find my proposal fair and based in fact. There are some militant aspects to this group. I fairly represent that. But I find it interesting that DBigXray's version doesn't mention the arrests of peaceful protestors. Some books reported this group faded a bit in the 1990s. I am not asking to remove that, but DBigXray believes these books reporting on events in the 1990s apply to the group today. Just look over the list I provided above. Do you think the movement is active?

All I ask that you take the facts in yourself and decide fairly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elephanthunter (talk • contribs)

References
References

Oppose Arguement

Some Major milestones/Claims (As context for new editors)

1. 1980s: The movement reached the peak.[5]
2. 1990s: The movement petered out and lost the Mass Appeal it had.[6]
3. Feb 2018: India states that there is no resurgence. [7]
4. Feb 2018: Canada states that it will not allow anyone to reignite the Khalistan movement. [8]

• 'Disputed' Content on resurgence was added in the article lead recently to claim that there is a "Resurgence" in the movement or "Movement is 'Active' or "Movement is revived" etc.
• Among the sources presented in the list above alleging (2018) Khalistan protests across multiple countries

• Ref # 1 A pakistani source calls minor scuffle reported here as mass protest. Pakistan is allegedly supporting the Khalistani hence a clear bias to exaggerate is expected & can be seen here.
• Ref # 2 another Routine annual protest without claiming resurgence.
• Ref # 3 This protest was against a motion in Canadian Parliament. It is wrongly being added here as protest in Support of Khalistan.

• Among the sources presented in the list above alleging (2018) Khalistan movement resurgence / uprising / re-emerging

• Ref # 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. 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.
• Ref # 9 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. Annual events and Radio ads, This source again cannot be used for Claiming a resurgence.
• Ref # 10 Article about Canadian politics, doesnt even state any resurgence.

• The sources presented so far in support of this claim Do Not Specifically state that the movement is active, the sources are only talking about routine annual protests (to keep memory alive) and regular information exchanges among countries/arrests to thwart the Terrorists from succeeding. This is being claimed as a proof of resurgence, while it is a clear example of WP:SYNTH.
• Sources in support of resurgence say some incidents (arrests and annual protests, call for referendum etc ) happening. Yes, these stray incidents by Fringe groups are happening. Should they be in article body? yes. Should they be in lead? No.
• Arrests/Activity of Terrorist Gang of 3 or 5 is not the same as "Activity of Movement". Such incidents alone cannot be used as an arguement to claim a "resurgence" or "support recently surfaced" for the Movement.'
• Fact is the movement was at its peak in 1980s and lost its mass appeal in 1990s. Since then the movement never recovered its mass appeal. And No reliable source says that the "Movement" became active.
• Some of the Khalistani sympathizers never stopped believing 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.
• The Khalistani Sympathisers would like everyone to believe that the movement was always/Still active (For obvious reasons). But Wikipedia is not a place for Political activism.
• IMHO Had there been an actual "'resurgence' of Khalistan movement", (which is a strong statement to make) then there would have been multiple neutral 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 events or future anticipation, speaks for itself.
• There is no solid source Claiming resurgence but there are several reliable source stating that "There is no resurgence",

1. Is there a resurgence of Khalistani extremism, considering the number of rec­ent incidents and killings? A. There has been no resurgence. Amarinder Singh Indian Punjab CM
2. "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 sources about "No resurgence" and support a WP:SYNTH based on news of events by "Fringe" groups, (Main Stream Media In India and Canada 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. So I propose removing the word resurgence of the Khalistan Movement (or any synonym) as a pure WP:OR
• In version 1, I have proposed to add the mention of arrests in the LEAD, to signify the recent events that are ongoing. This would give the user an idea of ongoing events without making controversial claims that The Movement is Active or resurgence.

--DBigXray 10:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The reuters article only mentions the word "fringe" when quoting Indian government sources. Is there any independent source that states that all groups that are sympathetic to the movement are fringe groups? If so I find no problem with either option. If not I'm okay with the first one minus "fringe". I see no problems with the second one.RadicallyNeutral (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, The Major Difference is, Version-2 Calls the Movement Active (i.e. claims resurgence implicitly) while the Version-1 does not do so. Yes, "Fringe" is widely used in the main stream Media for Khalistanis both in India and Canada. There are several sources see. It is similar to WP:BLUE arguement since the Khalistanis do not have Mainstream support of sikhs. As you requested, here are few of the sources Mentioning the Khalistanis as "Fringe"..--DBigXray 13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References
References

I specifically find the word "fringe" inappropriate as it could ambiguously mean radical or extreme. It is not surprising that many find any separatist activity extreme. But I imagine Wikipedia should stay NPOV.

Especially because, while some label this group as "fringe" (presumably to present the group as small), others argue the opposite... that Canada refuses to condemn the group because of the Khalistan voter base and support. The Indian Express writes, "In 2008, the then prime minister Manmohan Singh had raised concerns over an apparent resurgence of the Khalistan movement in Canada. Extremist politics is known to be a part of most Sikh religious celebrations in these countries." Doesn't sound very "fringe" to me.

Also, some of these uses of the word "fringe" refer to Khalistan militants, Khalistan extremists, or they use the word in quotes. They are not necessarily referring to your average joe holding a "Referendum 2020" sign. But you fail to make any such distinction in your summary. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References
References

We Need sources for Resurgence, Sources claiming apparent is just anticipating and not enough. Whether you like the word being applied here or not is irrelevant to Wikipedia, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact that Main Stream Media uses the word Fringe (meaning outnumbered Minority among Sikhs) for Khalistanis is what relevant and actually counts as far as the wiki article is concerned. See WP:MAINSTREAM. Khalistani Joe would obviously not approve of this word being used for them but Wikipedia will still go with MSM. Now regarding the Canadian Politics, please check these two links to read that they are indeed Fringe even in Canda.--DBigXray 20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

References
References

First, WP:MAINSTREAM is an essay. It doesn't override the manual of style. And the manual of style states that tone "should always remain formal, impersonal, and dispassionate." Also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT easily applies to your flailing attempts to make this movement appear inactive in the face of overwhelming evidence. It baffles me that you chose to take things this far. What incentive do you have that you would go to such extremes? --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Elephanthunter said "movement is active", right now we have only seen speculations. Before making a vote I want to read the sources that describe the movement as active. Orientls (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

The evidence thus far is not speculation. If you read through 2017-2018 news related to this movement (arrests, terrorist notices, statement by Trudeau, concern at G-20, accusations thrown at Pakistan), it quickly becomes obvious that this movement is active. Perhaps they are not fortifying the Akal Takht as in Operation Blue Star, but there they are active enough to not be removed from the List of active separatist movements in Asia. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source This RFC will also help in closing the ongoing discussion at Talk:List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Asia#Khalistan Separatist Movement to remove Khalistan movement from that list article also.--DBigXray 18:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your staunch position makes sense if your motive is to remove this group from that list. That's why I presented that link.

And yes, your position is both staunch and ridiculous. India did not release terrorist warnings about an inactive group. Singh is not arresting protestors from an inactive group. You didn't accuse me of WP:COI because you think I'm somehow associated with an inactive group. Your position defies logic. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Inactive Group of 5 terrorists and Inactive Mass movement, I hope you do understand that these 2 are not the same things, So lets not claim these two as same things. --DBigXray 19:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Calthinus: Can you mention the sources that say it is an active movement? This separatist movement is way different than the usual ones. Orientls (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Orientls: I'm not sure what "usual ones" are that you're speaking of, as separatism has a pretty wide range of manifestations including mass movements, unilateral independence declarations and armed conflicts on the one hand (breakup of Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, et cetera), to stuff like Scotland and Catalonia on teh other, or even eccentric (but still active!) stuff like "Wessex", Bavaria and "Cascadia". The sources already on this page demonstrating diaspora mobilization, considerable sentiment still in support of the idea, intelligentsia support suffice for me. You are setting the bar too high. Just look at the sources below placed by Elephanthunter-- for crying out loud, Canada and India discussed the matter. When is Germany going to "discuss" Bavaria with Canada? Never, but we refer to the Bavarian movement as active. Looking at hte sources provided by Elephanthunter (suppression of Khalistan protests by Indian police -- so there are protests! -- diaspora mobilization, etc, etc) versus those provided by DBigXray, I wonder why there is even a dispute here, as they pretty clearly demonstrate protests and relevance of the movement and nothing DBigXray has put forward has rebutted one iota of this. --Calthinus (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The whole arguement of resurgence/Active is based on WP:SYNTH of fringe protest and arrest article. And clearly against existing wiki policies. You claim of the talk between Canada and India, and you conveniently ignore what they exactly said. Canada specifically mentioned "No re-ignition", and yet you claim it is active. --DBigXray 17:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"Fringe" according to you. If there are protests, then there are protests. Are you seriously going to argue this is less active than Bavarian nationalism?--Calthinus (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No, "Fringe" According to both Indian and Canadian WP:Mainstream Media, see the list of refs in discussion below. As editors I believe we have to decide on the sources, (how strong, reliable, accurate etc) at hand without getting into making our own conclusions.. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is again an awful argument to make as WP:SYNTH.--DBigXray 20:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well you messaged List of active separatist movements in Asia where the comparison is relevant, not falling under other stuff exists. If you're going to have an RfC with implications for that page as you yourself stated, this is a consequence. Media? Your sources seem to be government statements. I assume you mean these two, wording as posted by yourself : Feb 2018: India states that there is no resurgence and Canada states that it will not allow anyone to reignite the Khalistan movement -- okay, so the Indian government is one, nope, obvious COI there, and ironically Canada saying it will not "allow anyone to reignite the Khalistan movement"... implies that the threat is present enough to be considered. "Resurgence" I don't really care but you can't go around calling the movement fringe and pretending it doesn't really exist any more. If there are protests that India has to resort to force to suppressing, yes, it exists and is quite relevant. --Calthinus (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Your reliance on government statements (obvious conflict of interest...) rather than independent analysis is a really serious flaw in your argument here. --Calthinus (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I am only referring to "Mainstream" sources, as opposed to Fringe or WP:SPS sources. I am not claiming that the movement is active, per WP:BURDEN it is onto the other party to present sources that says movement is active or resurgent. Can you kindly point on what MSM and solid source are you basing your argument here. Implying news of Protest as "Active movement" is a clear WP:SYNTH.--DBigXray 20:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

If a movement organizes protests, that it exists is WP:BLUESKY. Yes, you have mainstream sources saying that India's government says so (based on your words). That is entirely different than a neutral scholar saying so. Obviously, India's government is the total opposite of a reliable source here. On the other side, look at all the discussion there is just in the past four months about "Sikh separatism", fetched from Google News [[9]]. Yes these are RS (well, mostly). --Calthinus (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Comment DBigXRay has invoked this RfC's result as having bearing on the page List of active separatist movements in Asia [[10]]. This means that in order for side "Oppose" to gain the consensus, either it must be clarified that this RfC does not have bearing on that page, or that page's criterion for inclusion must have bearing on this debate. In particular this means that side "Oppose" needs to demonstrate that the movement does not have any recent activity at all, and furthermore, that autonomist movements (like one potentially calling for a Sikh entity within India) are also considered separatist, as per the paradigm used on that page and its sister pages which allow hte presence of movements like Wessex separatism.--Calthinus (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As I believe he has removed that comment, this one does not apply. --Calthinus (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Probably a good decision on his part. Choosing his battles. This conversation started in List of active separatist movements in Asia when Adamgerber80 tried claiming the movement was inactive. I came here and realized there were ridiculous statements in the lede such as "the movement is no longer of significance". When I went to write something less insane, I ran into some absolutely rabid opposition. It has devolved into the RfC you see above. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: First off, thank you for your response Gazoth. You have some valid criticisms. The 1990s decline of support is acknowledged in the lede, in the sentence immediately preceding what we are changing. To the reader, decline should be clear, but perhaps too much so. My lede counters a potential reader interpretation that decline means "inactive" by referencing the annual protests on Operation Blue Star. In the second half of your comment, you reference my three citations for resurgence. You have a point, those are valid interpretations of the source content. My argument for resurgence was not a core argument though. If that section was absent, what do you think of the other sections (police activity, terrorist warnings, etc)? Again, thank you for replying. As far as opposing arguments go, this is one of the more refreshing ones. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: I think it would be a bit of original research for us to deduce the level of activity from individual news stories. If it was the extremes, that is no activity at all or obviously high level of activity with wide and consistent coverage in reliable sources, consulting news articles would be fine. However since this is neither of those cases with annual protests and sporadic activity, we should rely on neutral secondary or tertiary sources for level of activity. —Gazoth (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Tune into London Declaration on August 12th, 2018, if you are still not convinced then wait for Punjab Referendum 2020. Punjabis are either free or rebels. Khalistan Zindabad! 69.176.128.145 (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• The London Declaration[11] stunt by 2% WP:Fringe is already facing stiff opposition in UK. let me share some Quotes.--DBigXray 11:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
• Bedford, treasurer Sukhpal Singh Gill said "‘Referendum 2020’ was the ‘handiwork’ of few elements who were against India. “98% Sikhs in the UK hold very moderate views. Only 2% are doing all this,” he said and added that their gurdwara had never responded to such calls."
• Sikh historian Harjinder Singh Dilgeer claimed that he had received some information about ‘Referendum 2020 hero’ Pannu but he refused to divulge it, stating he was yet to confirm the same. “This referendum is a public stunt. There is no objective or foundation of what will happen to the the Sikhs in rest of India,” Dilgeer added.

References

--DBigXray 11:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve the article

Hi The article at present needs several improvements in the form of sources and removal of multiple repeated contents. If you have any constructive feedback kindly share. The edit summary already contains some justification and I am ready to discuss more on that if there is a valid disagreement.--DBigXray 20:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello! I disagree with edits made regarding Punjab. Until we come to an agreement on the talk page, please do not make modifications related to the RfC. Also, if you remove entire sections (such as the river dispute), that needs to be discussed. This is a highly controversial article. Please see the longstanding tag at the top of the talk page: "Don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them." --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Elephanthunter: You have to provide a more detailed explanation for your reverts. "No consensus" and "status quo" are clearly insufficient reasons for reverting. If you think any of the sources added by DBigXray are unreliable or if any of the sources removed were reliable, mention them specifically. DBigXray, I have to agree with Elephanthunter that is too early to make any changes to the article that is directly connected to the RfC. You need to wait till the RfC is officially closed. —Gazoth (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Gazoth:, per WP:RFC closure rules and my understanding of the Consensus of the expired RFC above so I updated it based on the consensus. After the first revert by EH, I decided to drop the stick until the RFC section is formally closed. After his first rvert I (self reverted)[12] and restored the content of the Last para of the lead as Written by ElephantHunter (before the article was locked) and RFC started. So his claim that I am repeatedly restoring my version of RFC paragraph is completely baseless. Please check it yourself.--DBigXray 21:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@DBigXray: I saw your first addition of RfC text and then a lot of back and forth. I didn't notice that the RfC text was untouched in the later revisions. —Gazoth (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. The RFC text is just an excuse to disrupt the article improvement. --DBigXray 22:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that I need to explain in more detail. There's obvious room for improvement in this article. Some of the changes that DBigXray made were grouped with other changes that were related to the RfC. I did my best to separate them, but it was sometimes impossible to separate the two in the face of what appears to be a near complete rewrite. Here are some of parts I took issue with:

• Complete removal of river dispute
• Removal of references to Khalistan activity in Punjab, India
• Changes to death count statistics (specifically lowering Sikh death count)
• Complete removal of section on Akali Dal's demands
• Focus on movement "petering out" and other such changes related to the RfC

Likewise, I would prefer if DBigXray explain what he explicitly wants to change with the article. I'm sure there is a consensus to be had. --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Your last revert was your fourth. I advise you to self-revert quickly before you get blocked for violating WP:3RR. —Gazoth (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I already offered him to self revert at User_talk:Elephanthunter#August_2018 but he rejected, so I had to post at WP:AN3--DBigXray 22:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter and DBigXray: This is getting a little out of hand. Can we please not edit war over this article? I agree with Gazoth's assessment here. Let's keep the the RfC related content untouched for now (yes DBigXray is right about WP:STATUSQUO but that is not really worth edit warring over). Also, Elephanthunter needs to be more precise than the explanation they have given for reverting about 18,000 bytes of content. Here, please be specific over which content (based on which reference) is against what guideline. For example, if death count stats have been reduced, are they not properly sourced or have other references been ignored or removed. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Adamgerber80, I am all ears to discuss any disagreement that EH has to my edit. I even invited him to discuss at my talk page, but he seems to be only interested in blanket reverts. I plan to substantially expand the article and add sourced content I have already provided my justification in the edit summary of the article for each of my edits, all he had to do was point what exactly is his concern, but Instead my efforts of improving the article was stonewalled with wholesale blanket reverts of all the improvements. Even his justification is vague and he is not clarifying what and why exactly he disputed my edit. To me it likes a classic case of WP:BATTLE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT --DBigXray 22:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

AS displayed above, He has no respect for the Policy of WP:BURDEN but expects that anyone else editing the article he WP:OWNS should explain his edit so that he can stonewall it and block the edit from happening. --DBigXray 23:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Elephanthunter can you confirm if you have read and "followed" WP:BURDEN in your reply above ? Your actions which are completely against this policy either show that you are unaware or are feigning ignorance or worst WP:CIR. Kindly respond to this question and paraphrase your understanding of the said policy.--DBigXray 14:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

This again? Can you not even pretend to be civil? DBigXray, it was a fair request to discuss these topics before you made a large overhaul of the article in which you entirely rewrite the work of many editors before you. Some or perhaps most of your edits could be justified, but you included some decidedly controversial changes in an already controversial article. So yeah, they deserve a little discussion. It's almost as if you prefer aggressively butting heads and edit warring until we're mutually banned. You are mean-spirited and difficult to work with, and I would rather not interact with you. So I'm out. I'm done with this article (and entire topic matter) for the foreseeable future. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

As you wish, but Please check Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and WP:BURDEN follow them next time when you find yourself in a content dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Khalistan movement or Khalistan terrorism/Sikh extremism?

What's the rationale behind naming this article as "Khalistan movement" when there's an unambiguous factuality that it is militant advocating terrorism? Onkuchia (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Onkuchia you have a good point here. Names are generally decided on WP:COMMONNAME policy, i.e. the name that is widely used in WP:MAINSTREAM media. there is another article Punjab insurgency that only focuses on Punjab. This article is like a superset of that article. if you can provide sufficient sources to support your title, we can possibly rename this article. As of now I am neutral to this title. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

extremist leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

He is responsible for the following line that finds itself in the text:

"he remained in contact with the Sikh extremist leader Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale who was violently campaigning for a Sikh theocratic homeland"

This link is the proof: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khalistan_movement&diff=prev&oldid=855250175

Such a biased take on Bhindranwale has NO EVIDENCE. Calling him an extremist leader is one thing - but adding that he was "violently campaigning for a Sikh theocratic homeland" is not only unsubstantiated - but verifiably false. Unfortunately he is overly active on this page and should stop contributing because he cannot control his biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goosemuffin (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Goosemuffin: Please avoid personally attacking other editors. If you disagree with an edit, discuss it the talk page with accompanying sources in a civil manner. Can you provide any reliable sources to back your claim that the edit is "verifiably false"? —Gazoth (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

For your information, that line is sourced from NYT. I guess, the New York Times is also a BIASED HINDU newspaper, isnt it ? the article is factual and based on neutral third party sources. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)