Talk:Air India Flight 182

"Canadian terrorists"
WP:ONUS is very clear that the other party should be starting this discussion, but through their edit warring, they insist I do, so meh.

"Canadian ... terrorists" is a gross violation of NPOV and should not be in the article, let alone the lead. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The dispute is not about the inclusion of new content; it is about the outright removal the old, long-standing  and also well-sourced content. Here is the stable revision that includes the content before it was removed without any explanation.


 * Brief explanation of the removed content: A bomb was placed by Canada-based terrorists belonging to the Sikh-Khalistan nationalist ideology.


 * Your claim that this content is a violation of NPOV is baseless and wholly your personal opinion. The content is literally the most significant view mentioned in top relevant sources on Air India Flight 182. Not to mention it is fully backed-up by a plethora of best sources including the ones published by Oxford University Press and the Canadian government report.               The bombing of the plane was indeed a terrorist attack and those who placed the bomb were based in Canada and were Khalistanis. (fully sourced; not disputed)


 * And yet you insist the this content should be removed simply because you believe it is "anti-Canadian" to state that the terrorists were based in Canada, and as such you have been disruptively removing the content and the sources that actually improve the article. Personal opinions should not matter here. Wiki policies should not be misused or misinterpreted to censor or hide significant viewpoints from an article.
 * Not including "who placed the bomb?" and hiding the identity of the perpetrators (as is discussed in many sources) is a violation of WP:Censor and NPOV. There is absolutely no reason why the content (planted by....) should be removed disregarding the whole academic literature. Stormbird   (talk)  09:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Smasongarrison We need your opinions here on this matter. An editor has removed a significant viewpoint that identifies who planted the bomb on Air India Flight 182, which is covered in many high-quality sources. I suggest the restoration of the removed content as per your revision  Stormbird   (talk)  10:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please stop pinging me on this, you've done so several times. I do not have opinions on this issue. My "revision" was updating the category. Mason (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They were ideologically motivated; their country has nothing to do with the plot and should not be given the incredible amount of WP:WEIGHT you are trying to give it in the lead. There is no reason to do so and it is not censorship to remove it. If you want to fix it to remove refences to country of origin, feel free, I won't oppose that. But you are trying to imply that Canada is a country which harbours terrorists, which is unacceptable and a violation of NPOV, since this is an Indian government talking point and not at all a significant viewpoint. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I explained in the article that the term Canadian means "based in Canada". This is quite different from saying Canada harbors terrorists.


 * The sources cited are of high quality, published by top universities in the world, and have nothing to do with the Indian government. It's isn't a violation of NPOV.


 * The original content you removed is clearly of due weight as it appears to be one of the most significant views in sources describing the Air India 182 attack. It isn't undue.


 * Your reason for the deletion is totally based on your own personal views and should not override what many sources say about the attack. Stormbird   (talk)  06:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already added "terrorists" back into the article. I recognize that I shouldn't have removed that word from the lead. So now what problem remains? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really tell us anything about who those terrorists were. That terrorists were based in Canada is well-supported by several credible sources    . Unless there are other reputable sources disputing this content, it should be restored in the article as per the last revision. We can reword the content (if necessary) instead of outrightly removing it.  Stormbird   (talk)  07:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That can easily be explained in prose, without giving false implications though. The lead is fine as it is now, especially with the mastermind being added in this edit. Your version falsely implicated all Canadian Sikhs. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have already explained that it doesn't implicate all Canadians. The removal of the term Canadian and other content is a clear case of Censorship. Stormbird   (talk)  07:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on ... using a neutral point of view)" I have already explained that removing the word "Canadian" (and frankly, "Sikh" as well for that matter) violates NPOV by placing WP:UNDUE weight on nationality and religion. An example of a more appropriately neutral article is American Airlines Flight 11, which states "...by five al-Qaeda terrorists... rather than "Saudi Muslim terrorists". With respect to WP:OTHERSTUFF, we need not include the organization here, as the second paragraph covers this adequately, and in line with WP:BLPCRIME. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  08:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Change name or Split Article to "1985 Air India Bombings"
More appropriate title as used in WP:RS sources is "1985 Air India Bombing: AI flight 182". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-66909820 RogerYg (talk) 06:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * 1985 Air India bombings are similar September 11 attacks or 2004 Russian aircraft bombings


 * The bombing of Air India Flight 182 was part of a larger transnational terrorist plot which included a plan to bomb two Air India planes. The first bomb was meant to explode aboard Air India Flight 301,


 * The second bomb exploded in Japan's Tokyo airport, killing two baggage handlers. The original plan was to bomb the Air India Flight 301 to Bangkok in Thailand. RogerYg (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC about Changing page name

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Per consensus, WP:AVTITLE is applicable. – robertsky (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC) – robertsky (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Air India Flight 182 → ? – Current page Title is misleading & does not mention the main issue of the Bombing. This RFC is about: Should the name of this Wiki page be changed to include "bombing" either as "1985 Air India Bombing: AI flight 182" or "Air India Flight 182 bombing RogerYg (talk) 07:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Air India Flight 182 bombing or Air India Flight 182 disaster per nom.  DSP2092 talk  12:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not an RfC matter, please use the method described at WP:RM. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Air India Flight 182 bombing or "1985 Air India Bombing: AI flight 182". Yes, this request will next be placed with WP:REQMOVE, but before moving the page, it's a good practice to have some discussion on the title, so it's a relevant RFC matter. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * please remember to sign your posts with four tildes. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  Thanks GhostOfDanGurney for the reminder. RogerYg (talk) 06:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - per wikiproject naming conventions clearly indicated at WP:AVINAME. The flight number is known; there is no valid reason given to stray from a well-established standard. See also targeted vote-stacking by the proposer here &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:54, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi GhostofDanGurney, Well, you raise a good point about naming conventions at WP:AVINAME, and we may have to think about it. Also, this Rfc is only about Discussion on Title and no Voting is being done here. No Page move request has been made yet. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RM, particularly the section WP:RM. This shows how to use, which is the template that should be used instead of . It is used to advertise the discussion before it is agreed to use , and definitely before the move is performed.
 * Using at the top of the discussion will display an appropriate notice, categorise the page in, and trigger a bot to both place the discussion on the appropriate lists (see e.g. WP:RM) and place the  banner on the page. This in turn will trigger Article alerts.
 * Using will do none of these, and the page move specialists will be completely unaware of the discussion. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Redrose64 🌹 (talk), Yes, I agree that WP:RM is the right forum, for Page move / Title change. But, it's also reasonable to have some preliminary discussion prior to moving to the formal step of Move Request. This RFC is just for that preliminary Discussion on for & against reasons. Also, due to WP:AVINAME naming issue, we may have to consider other options such as a Split page request instead of a simple Page move request. Thanks again. RogerYg (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Current title already satisfies WP:AVINAME/WP:AVTITLE. "1985 Air India Bombing: AI flight 182" complicates matters and does not conform to WP:CONCISE, and second name (with bombing) is not WP:CONSISTENT with 99% of all commercial aviation accident articles with a flight number. S5A-0043 Talk 08:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * To add on, this article also conforms to the title conventions per WP:NCE, which clearly states that "Aviation accidents and incidents should generally be titled according to the air carrier and flight number for commercial air transport related events." (quoted in original form), and cites Eastern Air Lines Flight 212 as example. The proposed rename would likely violate this policy. S5A-0043 Talk 03:06, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * RfCs are explicitly not for discussing new names for pages. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad. S5A-0043 Talk 00:56, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The topic, in Ireland at least and per the redirect, is typically referred to as the "Air India disaster". However, this probably isn't clear enough or reflective of WP:GLOBAL. And an argument could be made for conflict with Air India Flight 101, Air India Flight 245, Air India Flight 855, etc. And so I can't support a move to that title. Otherwise, while I just about understand the rationale the proposal to add ".... bombing" or ".... disaster" as a suffix to the title, it seems unnecessary (relative to WP:CONCISE) and inconsistent (relative to WP:AVINAME). And it certainly wouldn't meet WP:COMMONNAME. The main rationale given for the proposed move, that the bombing isn't mentioned in the title, isn't in line with any guideline that I'm familiar with. (A title is typically representative/indicative of a subject, and isn't necessarily descriptive of it. The United Airlines Flight 93 title doesn't connect it to 9/11. The 2000 Camp David Summit title doesn't tell us what the summit was "about". Etc). For the same reasons noted by others above, and mainly because I'm not seeing a good reason for a change, I don't see why convention/consistency would be upended for this topic/title... Guliolopez (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support expanding the title either way (invited by the bot) This article exists because and is about a terrorist attack.  Accordingly, that is what people searching for this article are going to know. They might know the airline name and aren't going to know the flight number. So IMO leaving the real topic of the article out of the article is not a good idea.  With regards to discussions above I would tend to de-emphasize having the guide from one of the relevant projects dominate the result.  First, while such project guides can appropriately influence the article, they come from a narrower group/ more local consensus, and a usually only one of multiple projects relevant to the article and IMO should influence but not dominate what happens at the article.    Second, the quoted guide doesn't cover terrorist attacks and so the discussions are utilizing "accident" provisions in the guide. IMO the consideration for having a terrorist attack influence the title of the article is stronger than the consideration for having an accident influence the title of the article.  And third, if I were active at that project I would probably advocate for changing that guide even for accidents to mention the crash in the title....even those are really articles about the accident and would not exist if there were no accident.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree broadly with North8000 (talk),
 * But have to agree that WP:AVINAME naming is a good reason to keep this page title.
 * SOLUTION is to SPLIT PAGE content to a new page "1985 Air India bombings"
 * Similar to
 * September 11 attacks
 * 2004 Russian aircraft bombings
 * REASON: More than 1 flight was involved in "1985 Air India bombings"
 * Bombing of Air India Flight 182 was part of a larger transnational terrorist plot which included a plan to bomb two Air India planes.
 * The second bomb exploded in Japan's Tokyo airport, killing two baggage handlers. The original plan was to bomb the Air India Flight 301 to Bangkok in Thailand. RogerYg (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @RogerYg I think you're unaware that there is a separate article for that: 1985 Narita International Airport bombing. This article is talking about AI182 specifically. Also to be honest I doubt there's much to write about if we combine these two unlike 9/11. S5A-0043 Talk 11:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The 1985 Air India Bombings was a coordinated attack simmilar to 9/11 September 11 attacks and both these articles fail to highlight that. Also, it is considered the Biggest attack on North America before September 11 attacks, and is being widely reported again in 2023 in view of Nijjar's death. Hence, as per Wikipedia policies there is sufficient grounds for a separate article. RogerYg (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. While there has been much coverage, most of these are centered around AI182 compared to the Narita bombing (not that I'm saying the Narita bombing is unnotable), because AI182 was a successful plot while the Narita bombing failed. For example, in this BBC article, the Narita bombing only got 1 paragraph of mentioning without much detail. In this Hindustan Times article, there wasn't even a mention of the word "Tokyo" through a Control+F search, as is the case for this Deutsche Welle article. This kind of speaks on the notability of the combined plot, because we require enough coverage for the combined plot itself and not of the individual bombings.
 * Also we're kind of going off track here. If you want to suggest a new article to be created by splitting/merging the AI182 and Narita page, do it via a WP:SPLIT or WP:MERGE discussion (depending on which one you're going for). For this section, we should be only discussing whether the article name should be changed. S5A-0043 Talk 07:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Support move to Air India bombing. — GnocchiFan (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you disambiguate from 1985 Narita International Airport bombing with this title? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:AVTITLE. Editors who believe this naming convention is inadequate can start a discussion at WT:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force, not here. 162 etc. (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:AVTITLE. The Russian aircraft bombings have that title due to the fact that two planes were bombed. AI182 is a specific incident and although the Narita bombing was connected that doesn't mean the title should be changed against policy. Cutlass Ciera  13:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I think your argument actually Supports a Name change/ Split page as you Correctly note that similar to 2004 Russian bombing involving 2 bombings, the 1985 Air Indian 1985 bombings also involved 2 bombings, AI 182 and AI 301 bombing (Narita), that exploded at the (Narita) airport, which is a good enough reason for a Composite page or a Split page, as also with September 11 attacks, which is not against the WP policy. RogerYg (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:AVTITLE. Even though I don't like the (local) policy, it needs to be followed for consistency. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Will have to agree per WP:AVITITLE, we may not change name of this page, though the issue about Split page is a separate & relevant issue. This RFC has been open for over 7 days. Hi Kautilya3 (talk), you may close the RFC without any change since the discussion has saturated on this issue. RogerYg (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead sentence as per WP:AVINAME
The current lead sentence violated the lead sentence guidelines as per WP:AVINAME Style guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide/Naming

The lead sentence of this page followed INCORRECT guidelines and needs to be updated to CORRECT guidelines. RogerYg (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Where an aviation incident article does not use a common name or descriptive name as a title, and instead begins with the opening sentence: Airline Flight XYZ...., it should go on to immediately describe the notability of the incident in as few as words as possible. For this reason, it is not necessary in the opening line to clarify that the flight number may still be in use, or where it is normally scheduled to fly - this is because the normal flight or flight number is not the subject of the article. For example:
 * 1) Correct: Madeup Airline Flight 123 was a passenger flight from Somewhere to Somewhere Else, that on such and such a day, failed/crashed/blew up/was hijacked.
 * 2) Incorrect: Madeup Airline Flight 123 is a regularly scheduled passenger flight from Somewhere to Somewhere Else. On such and such a day, the aircraft used on this flight failed/crashed/blew up/was hijacked.
 * Updated the lead sentence as per CORRECT guidelines. RogerYg (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Air India Flight 182 was a passenger flight operating on Montreal–London–Delhi–Bombay route that was bombed on 23 June 1985 en route from Montreal to London killing all 329 people aboard.
 * We can discuus improvements here: should include main incident: bombing / bombed as per as per WP:AVINAME. Details of compression do not seem neccessary as per WP:AVINAME RogerYg (talk) 07:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Your version introduces grammar errors and duplicate information. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  10:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as per Grammarly, there is no grammar errors; and you did'nt mention which error. Only "329 people" is duplicate, and important information is often duplicated from lead sentence, which is a summary of the main topic. Anyway, I am not reverting fully, only decompression bit which is undue detail as per WP:AVINAME. Will wait for others editors to give their inputs. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 04:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) You removed the word "the" from "...operating on the Montreal–London–Delhi–Bombay route, ...". 2) Your latest edits mischaracterized the incident entirely. Nothing on the plane exploded except for the bomb that was planted on it. There is absolutely nothing wrong or out of line with the current version as it is, and frankly it was fine before you started editing it since your edits have previously repeated information found in some cases only a few lines down. The current version takes your concerns into account while still accurately depicting exactly what happened in as few words as possible. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:56, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia we have to follow WP:RS as per the Sources
 * As per BBC's exact quote below, the Air India Flight 182 EXPLODED.
 * If you have a problem, please contact BBC, and ask them to update their article. Meanwhile, we have to follow WP:RS sources such as BBC.
 * On 23 June 1985, an Air India flight travelling from Canada to India via London, exploded off the Irish coast, killing all 329 people on board. 
 * Thanks RogerYg (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Further, "catastrophic decompression" is a technical detail of the explosion, which should not be in the lead sentence as per WP:AVINAME and WP:Readability. Please see the Correct Lead Sentence options on WP:AVINAME. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated how your preferred version which omits this is "correct" per any policy. Only your repeated, evidence free assertions. Please stop restoring this version which is factually incorrect. Additionally, you are effectively replacing "catastrophic decompression" with a repetition of the number of casualties, despite that number, as I pointed out earlier, exists only a few lines further down in the lead section and uses up more words than "catastrophic decompression," so I genuinely don't understand your concerns. Please stop forcing through your edits which have editors opposed to them. That is not in line with WP:BRD. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It still stands that this is a relative factual error in that it was the bomb that exploded, not the plane. Something that I would say better fits the profile of the plane exploding is TWA Flight 800. Let me give an analogy for easier understanding: Suppose you have some chemicals in a flask that violently reacted and caused an explosion. Is it the flask that exploded?
 * Also, CNN said that "In the early hours of June 23, 1985, a bomb planted in the cargo hold of Air India flight 182 traveling from Montreal to New Delhi exploded off the coast of Ireland, killing all 329 people on board.". National Post stated here that "On June 23, 1985, a Boeing 747 going from Toronto to London was approaching the coast of Ireland when a bomb placed in an unaccompanied checked bag exploded, plunging the plane into the Atlantic Ocean below." We have reliable sources saying that the bomb was the one that exploded, so it seems like we're going for the contrary. S5A-0043 Talk 13:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess we can agree on National Post  language: "plunging the plane into the Atlantic Ocean" or crashed into Atlantic Ocean RogerYg (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess we have some consensus on this as there is Similar language in Washigton Post
 * "Air-India Boeing 747 en route from Montreal to London crashed into the Atlantic off the Irish coast this morning, apparently killing all 329 passengers and crew" RogerYg (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You still have not demonstrated why the previous version violated any policy. This change is wholly unnecessary. From a factual standpoint "catastrophic decompression" is the only correct term. I do not understand your persistent crusade against this. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the WP:RS sources mention "catastrophic decompression" in the lead sentence of AI 182 bombing artcles, and therefore there is no reason to include in on Wiki page lead sentence. It violates WP:RS, WP:Readability, WP:TALK, WP:BRD among many Wiki policies RogerYg (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Per S5A-0043, the majority of reliable sources correctly describe the incident. Cherry-picking an outlier would go against WP:UNDUE. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Washington Post, National Post & CNN all have this language of plunged / crashed. and it was mentioned by S5A-0043Talk This is not cherry picking RogerYg (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That was a reply to your comment from a week ago, when you tried to place UNDUE weight on the BBC source and then tried to force that change live, as you're again doing now. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the WP:RS sources mention "catastrophic decompression" in the lead sentence of AI 182 bombing artcles, and therefore there is no reason to include in on Wiki page lead sentence. It violates WP:RS, WP:Readability, WP:TALK, WP:BRD among many Wiki policies RogerYg (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Repeated re-additions of "the airplane exploded" which is a factual error is extremely inappropriate. it was the bomb that exploded. Stop reintroducing this factual error from an outlier source. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with, who is right in citing from WP:RS sources which mention the plane exploded, due to the bomb.The cited sources, Washignton Post, BBC, National Post are in no way outliers. We need to follow WP:RS sources. WP:BLUESKY argument cannot be misused to push a certain language. WP:NOR does not allow editor assumptions over WP:RS. RogerYg (talk) 06:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, None of the WP:RS sources mention "catastrophic decompression" in the lead sentence of AI 182 bombing artcles, and therefore there is no reason to include it in on Wiki page lead sentence. It violates WP:AVINAME policy for lead sentence. Also, it violates WP:RS, WP:Readability, WP:TALK, WP:BRD Wiki policies RogerYg (talk) 06:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yesterday you wanted to say that the plane crashed, now you want to restore the factual error that the plane somehow exploded by itself despite a bomb being planted on it. You are also splicing comments to fit your arguments. I only said that the BBC, in this particular instance, is an outlier in that its language is that "the flight ... exploded... which is a factual error. You're also completely ignoring what said now about what the other sources say, just because Kautilya3 started editing the article. You also continue to edit the article immediately after posting without giving anyone a chance to respond and oppose your proposals, which is disruptive. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I will still try to build consensus for "crashed" into Atlantic Ocean. Meanwhile, I mostly agree with Kautilya3's version, which is based on many WP:RS High Quality sources, until we have better consensus. RogerYg (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Currently have Sikh terrorists. Replace with pro-Khalistan terrorists or Babbar Khalsa terrorists in first paragraph
Currently we have Sikh terrorist as per the sources. Some editors want to Replace with terrorist or pro-Khalistan terrorist in first paragraph. We need to discuss the same with reasons and WP:RS sources RogerYg (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Removed Sikh as per previous editor, replaced by Babbar Khalsa since that appears most factual and neutral.
 * as per Neutral BBC source & also several Canadian Sources. Completed Canadian Investigation considers Talwinder Singh Parmar of Babbar Khalsa as the mastermind of the AI 182 blast, and most Western sources have accepted that finding, so that's good with WP:RS and WP:NPOV RogerYg (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is already explained further down in the lead section. Stop forcing theough these poor changes. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  10:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a strong argument that Wiki editors need to follow high-quality WP:RS sources, and may not censor perpetrator identity. Removing both Sikh and Babbar Khalsa seems to be an attempt to hide identity, and I think we need to include at least one qualifier for terrorists. Probably, as other editors have noted, we should follow the WP:RS high-quality sources RogerYg (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a question of reliable sources, it is a question of WEIGHT, and duplicated information in the lead is WP:UNDUE as well as makes the article clunkier to read. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:05, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There is an entire paragraph in the lead which outlines the perpetrators which states only one person was convicted. Your version places WP:UNDUE weight by once again duplicating information. Again, only a single person was convicted. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , WP:WEIGHT asks you to defer to sources. It is not an invitation for WP:OR. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * How is removing duplicate information adding OR? lol &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Kautilya3 (talk) has a strong argument about WP:WEIGHT and defering to sources WP:RS RogerYg (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That only one person was convicted for making a bomb doesn't mean other people were not involved in the bombing attack. The sources clearly mention "terrorists". There is no duplicate information. The mention of Khalistan/Babbar Khalsa merely adds additional information and there is no reason why the perpetrators, their group and their ideology should be removed from the upper part of the lead. The original lead in [this revision] was perfect and well-sourced before someone removed its content without explanation. Stormbird   (talk)  07:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, at least We need to mention "Babbar Khalsa" in the first paragraph, as the group claimed responsibility & was implicated. The entire first paragraph appears to be hiding their identity as also noted by. Currently its in second paragraph. RogerYg (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, an entire paragraph dedicated to answering the question "who?" That is more than sufficient and is not an attempt to hide anything. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:49, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn't any paragraph dedicated to answering who in the intro. And none of the information you removed is undue, as it has significant value from multiple reliable sources. Stormbird   (talk)  08:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The citation [1] has been present in September before the current editing spree has started. It is a respectable scholarly source. Here is what it says:

has made half a dozen attempts to remove the mention of "Canadian Sikh", whereas it is mentioned at the forefront in pretty much all the sources mentioned here.People familiar with the episode clearly see this as a blatant attempt at whitewashing.

GhostOfDanGurney, this is your last warning. You are editing against Wikipedia policies, and against editor consensus. One more attempt, and you will be taken to WP:AE. You are welcome to discuss here, and make edits only after you obtain CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Instead of escalating this by threatening me with AE (which I am also well within my rights to start a report at given the behaviour of RogerYg in here, for forcing through edits without consensus), you could have responded to my post above, which was in reply to Stormbird in the first section of this talk page, where I reiterated my reasons for removal. Here it is:
 * You similarly have no consensus to edit in the phrase was a passenger flight operating on the Montreal–London–Delhi–Bombay route, that on 23 June 1985, exploded over the Atlantic Ocean. As I and another editor (who was at first listened to, then ignored by the three of you) have stated multiple times, this is a factual error which is only supported by a single source out of many. The version from before I started editing included the wording "catastrophic decompression" which is why I reverted to that wording. There is no consensus for any of the changes made by You, RogerYG or Stormbird since September 19th. I removed content and have explained why, and per WP:ONUS, consensus MUST be formed to re-include it, in the case of "Canadian Sikh" or introduced, in the case of the "exploded" wording, which has not been done despite the repeated assertions, often made in edit summaries while forcing through these changes minutes after a comment is made, with no time for actual discussion.
 * This misrepresentation of the situation by you, and your continued editing without consensus will also be used in any AE statement made by me. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  10:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your edit here which went live the same moment I made the above reply. I still vehemently oppose the word "Canadian" in the lead sentence. There was never a consensus made for this inclusion on the talk page archive and I have outlined my reasons for removal above. Can you please respect WP:ONUS on this? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  10:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You can be reported right now for violation of WP:3RR, which you seem to have crossed a long time ago. So, I suggest you chill for a while.
 * "Exploded" was used by BBC in a recent article, but I agree "disintegrated" is better, and I have reinstated it.
 * There is no principle either on Wikipedia or in scholarly sources that religion and terrorism should be delinked. We have a page called Religious terror, and another page was recently renamed to "Hindu terrorism" despite many people's objections. A page on Sikh terrorism does not exist yet, merely because nobody got around to writing it. But I can assure you it is a huge subject, next only to Islamic terrorism. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would argue that I was in line with WP:3RRNO as I was removing a factual error from the lead sentence of an article, but regardless, I reiterate my appreciation for your changing it. May I propose a compromise?
 * ...disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean as a result of an explosion from a bomb planted by Babbar Khalsa terrorists.
 * This proposal fully satisfies my concerns about undue weight on nationality and religion. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  10:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to provide high-quality scholarly sources that name "Babbar Khalsa". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an article dedicated to it, rather than a passing mention in the above book.
 * And I feel I need to reiterate that WP:ONUS very clearly states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. We don't have to specify what kind of terrorists in the lead sentence at all, as that information is presented elsewhere, in our case in the next paragraph down. Can you please respect it? &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  11:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a news item regarding an ongoing investigation; carries zero weight for composing the lead paragraph. High quality scholarly sources published by Columbia Univeristy Press, Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press have been cited, mentioning "Sikh terrorists" or "Canadian Sikh terrorists". If you persist with this line of debate, you are liable to be charged with WP:POV pushing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Kautilya3, I support your edit, except for the "disintegrated" bit. I think "disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean" should be replaced by "crashed into the Atlantic Ocean", as "crashed" has been mentioned by several High Quality WP:RS sources including The Washington Post and The New York Times
 * "crashed" is also not disputed as a factual error by the other editors. Also, "disintegrated" is almost never used in the lead sentence of Aircraft crash/ bombing and hence may not be easily understood & thereby inappropriate as per WP:Readability. Further, "disintegrated" hides the violent nature of explosion, where "blown up" has been another term that has been used in sources. Almost none of sources use "disintegrated", and it seems to be an invention of Wiki editors that may not be okay as per WP:NOR. And "crashed into the Atlantic Ocean" seems to be better as per WP:RS, WP:AVINAME lead sentence, and WP:Readability. RogerYg (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Disintegrated" is what the text said in the September version before the current editing spree started. It implies the plane split up in the air. And it is in line with the BBC description of "exploded".
 * "Crashed" implies that the plane was in tact as it fell down into the sea.
 * Which is correct depends on the sources that appeared after the investigations. The newsreports that reported the event at the time are useless, however famous they are. They don't know what happened. Please always specify the date when you cite a newsreport. Its worth depends on the date. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Source, Globe and Mail is from June 23, 2015, after the investigations: Three decades on, the RCMP says its investigation into the Air India bombing — the worst terrorist act in Canadian history — remains "active and ongoing." On June 23, 1985, an explosion ripped apart Air India Flight 182 en route to New Delhi, killing all 329 people aboard, most of them Canadians of Indian descent. Authorities believe Sikh extremists fighting for an independent homeland sabotaged the Boeing 747, which crashed into the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Ireland.
 * As per the sources, "crashed" appears to have a broader usage including both cases, when a plane is intact or is not. RogerYg (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Global and Mail, 2010. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the June 13, 2015 article mentions: "Three decades on", so it was published in 2015
 * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rcmp-says-1985-air-india-bombing-investigation-active-and-ongoing/article25071447/ RogerYg (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This one also said it was "ripped apart". I am afraid you are now wasting time! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't want to argue on this. I just brought forward some points, and don't have any more points. I am okay with whatever you decide. RogerYg (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well the June 13, 2015 article mentions: "Three decades on", so it was published in 2015
 * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rcmp-says-1985-air-india-bombing-investigation-active-and-ongoing/article25071447/ RogerYg (talk) 08:12, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This one also said it was "ripped apart". I am afraid you are now wasting time! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't want to argue on this. I just brought forward some points, and don't have any more points. I am okay with whatever you decide. RogerYg (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)