Talk:Khalistan Independence Movement/Rfc

RFC starts here

Question is should the article lead state that the Khalistan movement is active/resurgence of Khalistan Movement.

Versions

Version 1 : Oppose

In early 2018, some militant groups were arrested by police in Punjab. Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claimed the recent extremism is backed by Pakistan's ISI and "Khalistani sympathisers" in Canada, Italy, and the UK. There is some support from fringe groups abroad, especially in Canada but the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has declared that his country would not support the revival of the separatist movement.

References

Version 2 : Support

Since 2017 Punjab police have arrested a number of separatist Referendum 2020 campaign supporters and militants. Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claims the movement's activity is backed by Pakistan's ISI, as well as Khalistan supporters in Canada, Italy, and the UK.

The movement is currently active in India and the Sikh diaspora, with yearly demonstrations in protest of those killed during Operation Blue Star.

References

Agreement on below facts

To summarize what both editors have established and agreed as per multiple sources is as follows.

1. The movement reached the peak in 1980s. [Mike Rana. A Citizen's Manifesto: A Ray of Hope. p. 60.]
2. The movement petered out in 1990s and lost the "Mass Appeal". [Lewis, James R. Violence and New Religious Movements. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 331. Retrieved 10 June 2018.]
3. India states that there is no resurgence. [1]
4. Canada states that it will not allow any resurgence. ["India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada". The Sikh insurgency petered out in the 1990s. He told state leaders his country would not support anyone trying to reignite the movement for an independent Sikh homeland called Khalistan. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)]

Opening Arguement

Oppose Arguement

• Disputed Content 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.
• Other party has agreed not to use the word "resurgence", but He is still in favour of using the phrase "Support recently surfaced" or "movement is currently active" which is analogous to giving a perception that the movement has resurged or is active.
• 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 I consider it a clear example of WP:SYNTH.
• Fact is the movement was at its peak in 1980s and lost its mass appeal in 1990s.
• The movement never recovered its mass appeal. And No reliable source says that the "Movement" became active.
• Arrests/Activity of Terrorist Gang of 3 or 5 is not the same as Activity of Movement.
• 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 future anticipation, speaks for itself. No solid sources have been presented in support of Resurgence.
• 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 cotroversial claims that The Movement is Active or resurgence.

What these sources presented by other editor are claiming that there are some incidents (arrests and annual protests, call for referendum etc ) happening. Yes, these incidents are happening and I am not disputing this, that these incidents are happening. Should they be in article body? yes. Should they be in lead? No. 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. Amarinder Singh Indian Punjab CM
• "India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada". The Sikh insurgency petered out in the 1990s. He told state leaders his country would not support anyone trying to reignite the movement for an independent Sikh homeland called Khalistan. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help) Canadian PM

• The lead cannot ignore such strong sources about "No resurgence" 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 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.

None of the above sources are solid enough to support the wild claim of Resurgence. I propose removing the word resurgence of the Khalistan Movement (or any synonym) as a pure WP:OR

Comments

Please feel free to edit my lines above as you like, or let me know here what changes you want to see. --DBigXray 18:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Usually an RfC is placed as a section in the regular talk page, so regular editors won't miss seeing it. EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually I have never made an RFC before and I guess EH as well. Hence I made this draft, we will bring this to the article talk page, once both of us feel it is decently showing our position and is reasonably brief to be effective. Appreciate if you could also help in drafting this based on your experience with RFC. --DBigXray 18:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This format is surprisingly alright. Here are my only criticisms:

1. My position is that I just believe the movement is active. I'm not married to the narrative of a resurgence. That implies a lot more than I'm willing to argue for
2. The section with the summary would be rather difficult to maintain, since we'd likely disagree on interpretation. You should be allowed to bold things, but clearly they're not things I would bold. It might be better to let our arguments sit separately.

That's all --Elephanthunter (talk) 00:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding your versions. IMHO this RfC is neither brief nor simple. I feel that we should first get the Question of "Resurgence/Active" answered. Adding Amarinder Trudeau UK etc is asking too much from this Rfc. If need be we can open another RfC once the Question of Resurgence is decided. --DBigXray 09:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

HI User:Elephanthunter may I know what is the reason for this, it was agreed upon above and on DRN as well. section is important as it summarizes the important events/claims for new editors. What is your objection to this section ? --DBigXray 16:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Sure. I do not mind those facts being mentioned, but I do not believe it is a maintainable in neutral form while we are in the process of RfC. We currently can't even agree on a neutral title. If you would like to mention those facts, they would be better off in your arguments section clearly marked with your signature. If you insist on having a summary of agreed facts section, that's something better managed by third parties (obviously I am not referring to the 3O, since you believe that user to be a sock.) --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I see, you never raised Any objection about that section here on the draft. So I assumed your approval. Based on the reason I gave above, I have moved it as a summary/Intro of the Question on the top. Along with my opening statement with Signature. the sources are mentioned for review. and I think that should be ok.

Regarding the title, The resurgence vs Active (synonyms) is really not an issue here. Your statement on the RFC is just another representative of WP:BATTLE, So I would suggest you either rephrase it to make it non offensive or remove it. Anyway its upto you, as its your statement. --DBigXray 17:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Quoting you I'm not arguing there is a "resurgence". That implies more than I really care to argue about. Just that it's active. What does this statement even mean ? are you saying the movement magically became active ? or are you trying to imply the movement never petered out ? This only shows your ignorance with the sources and facts. I would be happy to see a source that states what you are trying to imply here. --DBigXray 17:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

If you see them as synonyms, why is it so important to you to frame it as a "resurgence"? It's clear that favors your argument, since it implies things I am not even arguing. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You have already added Not active on top of both the versions. I am ok with that. --DBigXray 17:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, I asked for a title along the lines of "RFC on Activity of the Khalistan Movement" and DBigXray has decided to misrepresent my position as claiming there is a "resurgence". --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You've decided to put your own arguments at the top of our supposedly neutral template now? --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi EH based on our discussion on Eds talk Iam summarizing and decluttering the RFC, Accordingly I have moved these comments here, we can continue any discussion on the format of the RFC here. --DBigXray 07:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: Hi User:Elephanthunter Can you explain in detail why you did this The text and the sources are Perfectly neutral and been added as a summary/Background to the Question--DBigXray 15:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I asked you not to include that section and you included it anyway. And I just don't want to get into a meta-debate with you about what facts we've agreed on. The beginning of an RfC is supposed to be neutral and short. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop editing the RfC format. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are seriously edit warring me in the RfC to promote your argument? I do not agree with the presentation of your facts at the beginning. They do not belong in those sections. Stop messing with the RfC format. I will bring this to arbitration if you continue. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Kindly dont use such threatening language. It is only going to harm your case if you ever chose to open up any Block shopping entry on noticeboards.AS for the Rfc format, I am ok with the current version as of now and I do not plan to edit or modify it anymore. --DBigXray 17:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

You are free to modify your own version or arguement in whatever way you deem fit, but kindly do not touch my comments or version anymore now. The chance to modify things was only applicable to this draft RFC page. Thanks.--DBigXray 17:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RfC policy states the beginning statement must be neutral and brief. Your edits were unsigned, not neutral, and they remove from the brevity of our RfC. Please keep your arguments in the agreed-upon section. I do not agree with your proposal change the RfC format. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT Let me know what your actual concerns are. Why is it not neutral. As per my understanding it is as per the source it represents. If you have a valid point i will agree to it. --DBigXray 18:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Seeking Help for RFC format

• hi, Before Starting the RFC at the Talk page, we discussed the format and agreed here on this draft subpage.
• Based on the discussion above I wanted to put up a RFC Question + "Neutral Background/Context". But the other editor seems reluctant to allow a Context in the Question.
• Accourdingly I moved the context to my Version of the PROPOSED TEXT. but I was reverted again, [2]. No proper reason is being provided to explain the problem with Adding a Context at the end of the RFC question.
• Kindly help to provide your opinion or help us in drafting this RFC + context.

Thanks. --DBigXray 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC Question: Should the article lead state that the Khalistan movement is active/resurgence of Khalistan Movement.

"Neutral Background/Context" I had proposed to add after the Question:

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

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

Please use this version to see these refs--DBigXray 21:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

If DBigXray wants a neutral list: We're disagreeing on some fundamentals here. I don't want a meta disagreement about what facts are neutral and how to present those facts. There is already an "Opening arguments" section which can adequately provide background for editors visiting our RfC. If DBigXray is concerned that editors require background facts for our proposals, maybe one link at the top of each proposal section (to our respective opening arguments) is appropriate and fair. But considering the fundamental nature of our disagreement (whether the movement is even active), our ability to agree on interpretation of past events seems dubious.

If DBigXray wants subjective lists: How much does that differ from "Opening arguments"? Again, maybe a link at the top of each version to our respective opening argument would be appropriate. RfC introductions should be brief. --Elephanthunter (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

• I am replacing the "admin help" template with "helpme", because there is nothing here which requires administrative powers. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)