Talk:Khalistan movement

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Killed in Canada on June 2023. It's important to mention that: He was reportedly organising an unofficial referendum in India for an independent Sikh nation at the time of this death.

References

Improve Lead paragraphs

Here are some new WP:RS references from Sep / Oct 2023 that may help improve the lead to make it more balanced and neutral.

• "What is the Khalistan movement and why is it fuelling India-Canada rift?". reuters. 2023-09-19. Archived from the original on 22 September 2023. Retrieved 2023-09-24. Sikh separatists demand that their homeland Khalistan, meaning "the land of the pure", be created out of Punjab. The demand has resurfaced many times, most prominently during a violent insurgency in the 1970s and 1980s which paralysed Punjab for over a decade.

• Mogul, Rhea (October 6, 2023). "Why is India so worried about Sikh separatist calls for Khalistan?". CNN. Retrieved October 6, 2023. The decade-long Khalistan insurgency in the 1970s and 80s saw the massacre of civilians, indiscriminate bombings and attacks on Hindus. And in counterinsurgency operations, Indian security forces were accused of a multitude of human rights abuses. RogerYg (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

November

@Capitals00 You have been boldly reverted with adequate explanations in my edit summaries. Please get a consensus for contentious edits here first instead of edit warring per WP:ONUS Kiu99 (talk) 14:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

You are not explaining why you are reverting the reliably sourced academically accepted facts. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

[1] Read the edit summaries then. I am only removing undue content from the lead per WP:NOTSCANDAL. We can't place rumours on the lead in the name of " academically accepted facts". No academic is making these claims Kiu99 (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The other edits I removed are just Indian govt claims which are undue. No academic claims there either Kiu99 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a well-known academically accepted fact. For example, "Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had supported the Khalistan idea politically at every possible opportunity while under Zia Pakistan's engagement deepened."[2] You stand no chance with your removal of the sourced content. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

You're not paying attention. The content dispute here is not about if Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto sponsored the movement or not, it is about the BLP violating gossip material about what ZAB said being placed on the lead which looks like a conspiracy theory. I will not rehash the same policy link I referred to again which mentions this, please go through my first comment.

Also, I would be interested to know what is your (and user Capitals00's) opinion about the claims by an Indian govt official being placed on the lead in a very one sided/unbalanced manner (as no denial by the accused is even mentioned)? Kiu99 (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There are no "claims by an Indian govt official being placed on the lead". There is no BLP violation either. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

[3] I posted this on the reliable sources noticeboard just to verify if getting into a content dispute for this dubious quote is even worth it or not, and the response I got was this. So, the statement currently in the lead is misquoted and, in my opinion, highly WP:UNDUE. Lead is supposed to be the summary of the body. The current version starts with the needed intro about what the movement is and one line sentences about the events starting from the 1950's to the 1990's as per body.

The currently misquoted (+misplaced) line on the lead is from the "Outside of India" section for which there already exists a paragraph about support from Pakistan and the Sikh diaspora. Hence making this "quote" excess detail and undue for lead.

I also note that there is currently nothing about the militant groups on the lead mentioned in detail further down the article either, which should be. We shouldn't be giving this much undue weight to content from "outside support" section, especially when it involves a cherry picked line from a detailed interview. See WP:LEADFIX

(Side note: when I said claims by the "Indian govt" I was talking about the Punjab govt minister, who IS part of the Indian govt. But I rather not get into that further, my main objection is the undue misquoted line discussed above) Kiu99 (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Sources have been already provided to you for proving the inportance of the information. It won't get removed from the lead. It speaks of the creation of Khalistan movement. Capitals00 (talk) 13:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 November 2023

In Operation Blue Star section, add the following information from Operation Blue Star wiki article: "Indian forces were aware that civilians were present inside, and the operation began on a Sikh religious day, the martyrdom day of Guru Arjan Dev, when many worshippers would be present."

The invasion of the temple on a Sikh religious holiday, when more worshippers are present than usual, is a highly pertinent historical fact and should be mentioned when discussing the date of the invasion. Suggest adding this after the sentence "Army units led by Lt. Gen. Kuldip Singh Brar (a Sikh), surrounded the temple complex on 3 June 1984." Prabhjote1 (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not seeing how these additions are immediately relevant to the subject of the article, and going into more detail than there already is may not be neutral. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, it provides value by providing additional backlight to the readers such that they understand the magnitude of the situations. The article should be as verbose as possible, including sources like these will only provide more mental clarity Astrolamp (talk) 04:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Omission of sources/citations that jeopardize the integrity of the article.

Given that the situation involves many political parties, it would be considered pragmatic to use sources that are not partially or holistically funded by these parties as to prevent polarizing and possible biased opinions from influencing and jeopardizing the neutrality of this article.

I'd like to point out the following article for informed choices on the sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources

Considering that many of the sources originate in India, such as the The Times of India, the following section may be notable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Paid reporting in Indian news organizations Astrolamp (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)