Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 9

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.

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.
 * 4) canada claims that it will not allow a resurgence.

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  "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 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. . 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.-- D Big X ray  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)

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. -- D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray  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)


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

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
 * 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. -- D Big X ray  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. -- D Big X ray  10:01, 7 July 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. -- D Big X ray  17:45, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- D Big X ray  11:22, 9 July 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.-- D Big X ray  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)
 * 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., 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, 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) 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.-- D Big X ray   21:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 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. -- D Big X ray  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)
 * 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 but he rejected, so I had to post at WP:AN3-- D Big X ray  22:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is getting a little out of hand. Can we please not edit war over this article? I agree with '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  -- D Big X ray   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. -- D Big X ray  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.-- D Big X ray  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 Status quo stonewalling and WP:BURDEN follow them next time when you find yourself in a content dispute. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  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)
 * 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. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Goose Muffin, if you want to discuss, you have to follow WP:CIVIL and No personal attack. And we can discuss any issue you have. if you keep attacking editors you will not get any response and all you will get will be a block. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2018
x - According to India's intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing, Sikh resurgence is imminent, given the increased activities of Sikh radical organisations globally, allegedly in countries such as Germany, UK, France, US, Pakistan, and Malaysia.

--- This above content should be deleted

The source provided has nothing to do with RAW, nor any statement given by RAW. The source is completely irrelevant to what is posted in the article. Possible this line is inserted to spread hate and propaganda. Also To create distraught between indian organization RAW, Please look into this and let me know.

Thanks Dhaval Raja (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ✅ thanks for your edit request. I agree this line also violates the policy of WP:CRYSTAL. regards.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:03, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Search terms in Google Books URL
The search terms are not essential to land at the appropriate page. The only part of the URL that helps you do that is  which was not removed in 's edit. —Gazoth (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gazoth Thanks. Smasongarrison (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gazoth we are discussing this at User talk:Smasongarrison I have reverted several such edits and most of the clipped URLs were landing at cover page, which is not helpful. or the highlighted text is removed. See these 2 links to compare . Anyway, please discuss further on his their talk page. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  22:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Her pageSmasongarrison (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2018 (UTC)