Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 10

RFC on Resurgence/Activity of the Khalistan Movement
Should the article lead state that the Khalistan movement is active/resurgence of Khalistan Movement. -- D Big X ray  10:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Versions
Version 1 : Oppose (No Resurgence of Khalistan Movement)

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

.

!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.-- D Big X ray  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 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) blocked sock D Big X ray ᗙ  00:37, 12 October 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)

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)

Oppose Arguement
Some Major milestones/Claims (As context for new editors)
 * 1) 1980s: The movement reached the peak.
 * 2) 1990s: The movement petered out and lost the Mass Appeal it had.
 * 3) Feb 2018: India states that there is no resurgence.
 * 4) Feb 2018: Canada states that it will not allow anyone to reignite the Khalistan movement.


 * '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 MOS: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",
 * 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
 * Canadian PM

-- D Big X ray  10:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 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.

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".       . -- D Big X ray   13:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.-- D Big X ray   20:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 is not a reliable source This RFC will also help in closing the ongoing discussion at Talk:List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Asia to remove Khalistan movement from that list article also.-- D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray  19:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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 (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. -- D Big X ray  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.-- D Big X ray  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 : and  -- 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.-- D Big X ray  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 []. 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 []. 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)

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)
 * 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 stunt by 2% WP:Fringe is already facing stiff opposition in UK. let me share some Quotes.-- D Big X ray  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.

-- D Big X ray  11:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Reference UNPO
The reference to "UNPO Official website". UNPO. Retrieved 26 May 2015. refers to this page as shown on the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150526154223/http://unpo.org/article/2244

That page is about the Oromo of Ethiopia. It has nothing to do with Khalistan.

Unless a correct reference is provided, this information should be removed.

1.127.107.155 (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ IP User 1.127.107.155, thank you for pointing this out. I agree and I have removed the contentious information as it failed WP:Verification. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Here are references from the UNPO wiki article about Khalistan membership:


 * The Flag (File:Flagge_Khalistans.svg) was made by User:J. Patrick Fischer (noted FOTW member) based on the flag presented on the website of prominent Khalistan organization "Council of Khalistan": https://web.archive.org/web/20080609124045/http://www.khalistan.net:80/
 * These are credible references and the Flag is accurate as well.
 * I am going to re-add the Flag with the caption "Flag used by the Council of Khalistan to represent Khalistan." and also add information about UNPO membership within the article. Please tell me if there are any objections. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotitbro thanks for your kind intentions of helping and joining the discussion on the talk page first. I have verified your links. Khalistan.net is not a WP:RS reliable source by Wiki standards, and this is a controversial piece of information, which needs to be verified by a reliable source before it can be added into the article. The info in the article stated that this was the flag that was used in UNPO and that is still unverified from a RS. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I see. Since the flag is contentious I think the UNPO membership should be mentioned in the appropriate section, it would be great if you can do that. I would like to mention that the same flag has been used as an icon all over wiki to represent Khalistan (such as Punjab insurgency). Also is there any appropriate infobox for the article? Gotitbro (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotitbro Yes, indeed, the UNPO membership (without the contentious flag) deserves a mention in the article and I will be adding it to an appropriate section. If you find this flag at other places please remove it.
 * Regarding the WP:INFOBOX. Although it is not mandatory, we can add one if we have consensus. I am not sure which one is applicable, if you have a suggestion, let us build up an infobox here on talk page before we move it to the article. the main problem to make such an infobox will be exact data points, which is hard for this article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought about it and looks like an infobox is more appropriate for Punjab insurgency than here. Though an appropriate image should be there in the lead. Gotitbro (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotitbro, All good suggestions. go ahead, create one infobox in the talk page, and we can then discuss if it needs more tweaking or if it is appropriate to add. My concern is most of the data points in the infobox will be hard to add because of lack of hard facts. That is the reason why I did not add it so far, but if you have a better idea for infobox I would be glad to add it. but lets start with a draft infobox at the talk page (or your Sandbox) first. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that the article is currently fine without an infobox (cannot find a suitable one) but since the lead image of the flag has been removed another one should be put in the lead. And the UNPO membership should be mentioned in the "Support from outside India" section. Thanks. Gotitbro (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the flag, unless we have a reliable source that we can verify the flag from, we cannot add it to the article.
 * ✅ added the UNPO membership in the section you suggested.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2019
222.100.126.78 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)