Talk:Khalistan movement/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

New reverts from December

I have reverted DBigXray because he reverted correct edits by two editors and used misleading edit summaries.

Content added by TurboCop is verified to multiple reliable sources,[1] and they are not "opinions added as facts".[2]

Edits by Wiki.0hlic[3] which changed terms from "failure" to "decline" also seems to have been used by reliable sources,[4] but nothing what DBigXray wants to use.[5] GenuineArt (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@GenuineArt: - I concur with your reverts. It is unfortunate to see an experienced Wikipedian display such blatant topic bias. - Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 20:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Wiki.0hlic: I think there is more to check here. I am detailing the some of the past reverts below. GenuineArt (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Past reverts

Looking back into the history of article, I am baffled by the edits of DBigXray here. For a name, his addition of content such as this doesn't appear to be supported by the source. Other edits also seem problematic though I will start by describing the removals first.

• [6]: content removed as "remove WP:SPS", however sources published by The Hindu, U. C. Kapur & Sons, Mittal Publications, and others were not self-published.
• [7]: content removed as "controversial claims need better sources and not related to Topic", however sources included good sources like Anamika Pub., John Murray, and others.
• [8]: content removed as "WP:FRINGE already mentioned as false in next line". While there might have been too much dependability on a single reliable source, it was clearly not WP:FRINGE.
• [9]: content removed as "more WP:FRINGE talking about "a section of sikhs", though this was clearly not the case and this section included multiple sources.
• [10]: content removed as "off topic", however it was relevant to the topic since it talked about origins of the militancy and cited University of California Press as a source.
• [11]: content removed as "remove WP:SPS and Adding reference(s))" however the sources included some quality journals,[12][13] and publication from South Asia Books, where as DBigXray used a source that does not support "A large numbers of Sikhs condemned the actions of the militants".
• [14]: content removed as "remove detailed info on state reorganisation. An intro is only needed." Though the edit itself appears to be violating WP:CENSOR.
• [15]: content removed as "Copyedit Adding/improving reference(s)", the removed content was nowhere addressed.

These misleading edits constituted removal of about 16,000 bytes. The removal was reverted by Elephanthunter[16] however he was reverted at the end of the day. Should we restore these edits back as they were removed without proper justification and consensus? GenuineArt (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi GenuineArt, thanks for your kind comments, I will be happy to discuss the edits with you. I will copy your comemnts and respond inline.

• [17]: content removed as "remove WP:SPS", however sources published by The Hindu, U. C. Kapur & Sons, Mittal Publications, and others were not self-published.

• The content was mainly from sikhphilosophy Singh, Aman. "Gurcharan Singh Tohra (1924 - 2004)". sikhphilosophy.net. Retrieved 4 April 2013. and "Achchhar Singh Jathedar". sikhencyclopedia.com. A Gateway to Sikhism Foundation website. Retrieved 4 April 2013 that are textbook examples of WP:SPS, there were some more offline refs thrown in for good measure.--DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• [18]: content removed as "controversial claims need better sources and not related to Topic", however sources included good sources like Anamika Pub., John Murray, and others.

• This was controversial statements made during the course of Partition. Lot of such discussions were made about partition of Indian Punjab and it was not specific to Khalistan. hence removed. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• [19]: content removed as "WP:FRINGE already mentioned as false in next line". While there might have been too much dependability on a single reliable source, it was clearly not WP:FRINGE.

• The section itself clarified that it was false allegation when the section in the next lines, said "In reality, Nehru had not sent out any such directive, and in fact, Kapur Singh's case had been scrutinised by his own colleagues before he was dismissed.[] Nevertheless, Kapur Singh was later supported by the Akali Dal leader Master Tara Singh, who helped him win elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly and the Lok Sabha (Indian parliament)" --DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• [20]: content removed as "more WP:FRINGE talking about "a section of sikhs", though this was clearly not the case and this section included multiple sources.

• The article said, A section of Sikhs perceived this diversion of river waters to the Hindu-majority Haryana as unfair and as an anti-Sikh measure It elaborated into an entire paragraph the events related to water dispute that wasn't related to Khalistan. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• [21]: content removed as "off topic", however it was relevant to the topic since it talked about origins of the militancy and cited University of California Press as a source.

• This part was removed as it was a personal opinion and had talked about theory of "cosmic war," (Juergensmeyer's cosmic war rubric) that has got nothing to do with Khalistan. The content on Rise of militancy and Bluestar was relevant and was re-added with sources, you can see it in the current version of the article as well. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• [22]: content removed as "remove WP:SPS and Adding reference(s))" however the sources included some quality journals,[23][24] and publication from South Asia Books, where as DBigXray used a source that does not support "A large numbers of Sikhs condemned the actions of the militants".

• This part was removed as it was a personal opinion and had talked about theory of "cosmic war," (Juergensmeyer's cosmic war rubric) that has got nothing to do with Khalistan. The content on Rise of militancy and Bluestar was relevant and was re-added with sources, you can see it in the current version of the article as well. Please note the source mentions the statement it is cited for, you may need a subscription --DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• [25]: content removed as "remove detailed info on state reorganisation. An intro is only needed." Though the edit itself appears to be violating WP:CENSOR.

• You should be aware that the "the first explicit call for Khalistan was made in 1971", this content in diff talked about 1950s just after the Partition of India, --DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• [26]: content removed as "Copyedit Adding/improving reference(s)", the removed content was nowhere addressed.

• You should be aware that the "the first explicit call for Khalistan was made in 1971", this content in diff talked about 1947 just after the Partition of India. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:59, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• There are some practical limitations on the background section of the article and not everything from 1930s and 1940s (which is huge considering the partition) until 1971 can be added in Background section. The article as it stands currently is reliably referenced, I will be happy to discuss if you have any concerns with them. regards.  --DBigXrayᗙ 22:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

You have failed to address the issue of WP:FRINGE and WP:SPS, since those two policies were mostly invoked by you for removing the content. Can you also describe how you were "Expanding article" in these edits[27][28] when you were only edit warring to remove about 19,000 bytes of established content without consensus? Orientls (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

So DBigXray, why you removed entire content just because only 1 or 2 out of 5 references were SPS? Are you attempting to claim that if there is one SPS that means entire paragraph should be deleted?[29] You could have instead tagged very particular content with {{self-published source}} and wait for a period until it would be resolved but removing entire content by claiming it as "WP:SPS" was disingenuous. To say that this and this content could be removed only because you read somewhere that "first explicit call for Khalistan was made in 1971", then you are again misleading others because with this logic you would be removing "origins" and "history" sections from every other article because Rome was not built in a day. Everything has some origins and history. Dismissing content from academic sources as "opinion", something that you have been doing on other articles, only reflects that you depend on what you like or don't than what reliable sources say. You could cite other reliable sources if any there is any contradiction but we cannot dismiss content from reliable sources as "opinion", only because you don't like it. Now that the issues with your edits have been adequately detailed, you are ought to simply accept that you were completely wrong with your edits and should allow restoration in place of defending them. Having seen your edits on other articles, I would simply put that if you can't represent what source says and you are willing to engage in WP:OR, WP:EW and editing against consensus then it is impossible trust you with editing altogether. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 05:11, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, your edit descriptions for content removal here appear misleading, and the follow-up explanations in this thread follow suit. I can't add anything not already addressed. Despite your claims, each content removal was historically relevant. And all removed information appeared to paint India in a poor light. Especially concerning is the above statement implying that you WP:OWN this article: "The article as it stands currently is reliably referenced, I will be happy to discuss if you have any concerns with them. regards". I think it's fair to say that, due to your edits, this article could use significant improvement, and the reinstatement of the above sections would be a step in the right direction. --Elephanthunter (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Noting that User:TurboCop has now been blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Faizan#12_February_2019--DBigXrayᗙ 07:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Edits by Turbocop

User:शिव साहिल Did you notice that there was a quote requested tag, on the edit that you reverted. As Orientls states "If the edits here are so "reliably sourced" then consider producing the quotes from the snippets from these books that have no preview unavailable for me (and probably others). If you can't then self-revert yourself right now" --DBigXrayᗙ 08:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Khalistan and extremism

[Content]

Hello @Dheerajmpai23 support your claim that "Khalistan and extremism" is a minority view (undue weight).

As I can see the link between Khalistan movement, and militancy and terrorism is pretty strong, and this subject is frequently discussed by respective scholars in countless academic writing. Some of them have been cited by me. Far from being a minority view, "Khalistan extremism" has been a popular and general trend in academic writing.

@DBigXray: Need your opinion. Stormbird (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Dheerajmpai23 Please explain what makes you think this addition of reliably sourced content by User:Stormbird is WP:UNDUE ? This is not a fringe theory and IMHO it should be included in the lead. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of what "sources" say there is no guarantee that verification would always warrant inclusion. "Separatism" the word itself contain all forms of activities that this editor particularly wants to specify in violation of WP:UNDUE. His edit is a WP:SYNTH to some extent. It is POV pushing and edit warring over such problem edit reduces chances of credibility. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of the content is based on frequent mention made of the direct link between Khalistan and extremism in academic works, media and international government reports (not on the mere verification). The Khalistan movement was the immediate cause of terror activities in Punjab in the late 20th century. Khalistan extremism which aims at creation of an independent state, is the subject of international publications on terrorism. The movement is closely linked with various active "internationally recognized" terror organizations. More than enough sources establish that the extremist/militant aspect is a widely supported aspect of this movement and the editor is supposed to give due weight to this in the lead section. Stormbird (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Your personal analysis does not matter. We report what sources say and what you are currently reporting has been already added on the article. Using stronger words to highlight a POV is against policies. Your information is not directly supported by your sources as well but appears to be your own conclusion of the subject. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I would have to agree. The changes by Stormbird are undue in the lede. These are cherry picked sources rather than a well-researched synopsis of the movement. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Harmanprtjhj: Wikipedia also expects common sense from editors. Using stronger words is not against policies if they are supported by various reliable sources. If you think the content (the link b/w Khalistan and terrorism and terror organizations) is an improper synthesis, you should be able to explain what new conclusion is being produced which is not supported by the sources.

Some of the statements from the cited sources:

Sikh terrorism is sponsored by expatriate and Indian Sikh groups who want to carve out Khalistan (land of the pure) from Indian territory. In recent years, groups active in this violence have included Babbar Khalsa, International Sikh Youth Federation...

— 

Many of the groups sought to achieve an independent Khalistan (land of the pure). The various groups engaged in typical terrorist operations such as bombings, assassinations, kidnapping and attacks on the security forces. Among the targets were Hindu inhabitants in Punjab

— 

During the 1980s, the cause of Sikh independence became a major source of terrorism in the northwestern part of India

— 

References

What new conclusion is made that the sources do not support? And I find it improper not to mention internationally recognized terror organizations (that are fighting for the Khalistan movement) in the lead. The lead should explicitly cover the significant aspects of the topic.

The content you try to dispute is a reduced statement that is suitable for the lead and which is generated from the direct statements and a proper synthesis of the material. Refer WP:SYNNOT to know what synthesis is not. Stormbird (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you are simply not getting it. There is nothing in my earlier statement which is not answering your new reply. Also avoid using <ref> tag for article talk pages unless you can also use reflist-talk. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Harmanprtjhj: Your earlier comment didn't highlight what new conclusion is being made by the paraphrased content you try to dispute.

Conclusion: "The creation of Khalistan resulted in Sikh terrorism and organizations such as Babbar Khalsa are fighting for this cause" — kindly elaborate how this is not supported by the cited sources. And how does the conclusion you believe to be my personal conclusion differ from the authors' conclusion? Stormbird (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Stormbird it is clear that the allegations of Synthesis and undue were devoid of any substance. Glad to see that you have already produced the quotes. ( I was about to ask you for the quotes to debunk SYNTH claims. Folks opposing the content have claimed it is minority viewpoint but failed to add any evidence in support of this claim (that it is minority viewpoint). Now unless Harmanprtjhj or anyone else can prove that this is a minority viewpoint, this content is going back into the article soon. Based on my own researches on the topic I agree with User:Stormbird that this is a majority viewpoint and per WP:MAINSTREAM we should include this both in the article and the lead. --DBigXrayᗙ 05:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Stormbird has provided a few sources to support his edit but per WP:SYNTH, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Stormbird is inaccurately making his own meaning after arranging multiple sources when the movement has been already described as a separatist movement. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You've your own understanding of Synth rule of Wikipedia. I suggest you to refer WP:NOTSYNTH to know more about synth. Wikipedia opposes taking an excessively strict interpretation of the policy. Synth is not explanation—”SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis”. Note that editors can paraphrase the source content retaining the meaning of the source. Also, as I can see you've not explained what new statement is made. You should be able to to highlight the difference and why the editor's thesis is not verified by the sources. The mere allegation is not enough. The allegation of "own meaning" has no basis. And the end part of your last statement doesn't make any sense. Stormbird (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

It is undue for the lead and you are creating your own conclusion by combining material from multiple sources which is not supported when your asserstion is not directly supported by any of your sources. See WP:IDHT. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: The editor has not provided any rationale behind the revert. In such case, the sourced content is supposed to be restored. I think we need to reach an appropriate decision now. Stormbird (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• User:Stormbird I appreciate your patience and calm presentation of your side in this discussion. Clearly nothing has been presented so far to prove anything other than repeated "chanting" of SYNTH. We have waited enough (12 days) so that they can present their sources to back up their assertions. Clearly they were unable to find anything to back up their claims. In such a situation, I suggest we can restore the said content back into the article referring to this discussion thread. Harmanprtjhj and Dheerajmpai23 enough time was given you have failed to provide any reliable source, if you further revert this content it will be considered editwarring against consensus and you will be reported for the same.
• Meanwhile I have found more quotes in support of assertion of Stormbird, see below.

Thus, one can easily deduce that Sikh terrorism is, in part, Khalistan oriented and based on an ideal theocratic government through partition and secession of India.

References

• Khalistan is always discussed along with sikh terrorism another example here. Stormbird Please also consider expanding the article body with a more elaborate version of the line that you have added into the lead per MOS:LEAD, regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you both think that you can form consensus by WP:CANVASSING through selective pings to each other then you are very wrong. See what other 3 users have said, so there is no consensus for these new edits. If poor edits have been ignored then just drop the WP:STICK. We are not going to provide undue weight to a  WP:SYNTH to describe Khalistan Movement as a terror movement when it has been already described as a separatist movement on lead and is widely described as a separatist movement.[30][31][32] Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted these changes by Stormbird, as the summary indicated talkpage resolution when there clearly is still dispute. At the very least, it seems these changes don't meet the criteria for appearing in the article lede. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

[[33]]

There have been some disruptions on the article to oppose every kind of change that reveals the predominant extremist aspect of the Khalistan movement. Enough time was given to highlight the alleged WP:SYNH or to prove how "terrorist/extremist" aspect is a minority view. We have yet to see any substance in the counter-words. As per the reverting rules, the content will be restored if the editor fails to satisfactorily explain the reverting action.Stormbird (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: Yeah, the article needs to be expanded based on that. Plus, we should also explain how politics of identity shaped the Khalistan movement.

Here is another quote:

In the Punjab, the movement for greater state autonomy gave way to a terrorist movement for an independent Sikh nation of Khalistan

Stormbird (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

References

@Harmanprtjhj:

You've again reverted the sourced material.[[34]]

Stop WP:EW better come up with some reasonable arguments that explain your revert actions. For now I'm not reverting your unexplained disruptions. Other editors may look into this. Stormbird (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

_______

@Dheerajmpai23: has requested to protect the article,[[35]] the article is now locked for a definite period.

What one can notice about the recent activities is that successive reverts have been made without properly backing up the claims on the talk page. There have been zealous attempts not to highlight the major aspect of the movement—extremism. The shallow arguments such as "the word separatism is used" show lack of understanding. The word refers to only "separation from a state." It's related to the aim rather than actions. It doesn't deny the direct link between the movement and extremism or terrorism. No one here disputes that the Khalistan movement aims to carve out an independent Sikh state. What we expect is that you should provide references which question the link between Khalistan and terror or make such link a minority view. And we've provided more than enough sources to strongly back up the direct link between Khalistan, and terrorist acts and internationally recognized terror organizations.Stormbird (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no consensus that you've provided adequate sources. Just the opposite. You've chosen obscure books such as "India: Government and Politics in a Developing Nation", with zero Amazon reviews and a single 3.5/5 Goodreads review. I'm not sure how we're supposed to react here. DBigXray provided a link which includes his search term "khalistan and terrorism". If I perform his exact same search, I see DBigXray skipped more prominent and relevant books like "Fighting for Faith and Nation: Dialogues with Sikh Militants". No amount of cherry picking is going to change the facts here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Rajiv-Longowal Accord missing citations

There are claims related to Khalistan in the section on the Rajiv-Longowal Accord which are not covered by the main article, and for which there are no citations. The whole section has no citations. Unless it we do some cleanup work on that section, it should be removed from the article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

It is a major milestone. if there are sourcing issues, it can be added. why should it be removed ? --DBigXrayᗙ 05:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a controversial article. New controversial material should be well-sourced. --Elephanthunter (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Elephanthunter, yes I agree that this should be reliably sourced. I have added one already and will add more sources in due course of time. thanks --DBigXrayᗙ 16:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Continuing large content reverts

This is a continuation of the discussion archived two weeks ago. Five editors questioned why DBigXray made large reverts of content (sometimes with misleading edit summaries). Two weeks after the archival of that discussion, DBigXray came back to make their first large revert, removing content written by User:Dilrajd, with this edit (and again). I'm not interested in getting into an edit war. I just would like to reference the recent talk page consensus that such large contested reverts are inappropriate without discussion, and figure out why DBigXray wants to replace a cited history of Sikh origins in Punjab with a less-cited explanation that doesn't do much to describe the role of the Punjab, India in Sikhism. If it belongs anywhere, this historical context explaining Sikh separatism in the region belongs in the Khalistan Movement article. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Simple WP:BRD is being followed here. User:Dilrajd did a massive copy paste from Sikh_Empire without making a strong case why it is needed here. This article is not about Sikhism or Sikh Empire, stuff that happened 500 years back. This article is about Khalistan Movement which happened in the late 20th Century. The article as it stands right now is heavily bloated and I dont see any reason to bloat it further by adding content. The background section currently already covers this in summary. For folks who want to know more, appropriate wikilinks to these pages from where the stuff was copied has already been added. Sikh seperatism is not the same as Sikhism, dont try to mix the two. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The arguments for Khalistan Movement are founded in the location of the historical Sikh Empire. The article background section doesn't cover this in particularly great detail. And it's pretty common practice to copy subsections of one article to another, especially when those sections are well-written. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Casualty count from the UK

@DBigXray: Do you wish to discuss why you want to not include the report on high casualty count from the UK? It appears you are reverting this content as well, claiming that it is a primary source. -- Elephanthunter (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Elephanthunter , I am waiting for you to make your case after which I can respond to that. Please create a new thread on the talk. regards. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Kautilya3, this was moved into a new section. Please make a good faith effort to respond instead of postponing discussion and making a big issue of minor details. Can please explain why you believe this to be a primary source? --Elephanthunter (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted repeated insertion of disputed content without consensus. There are multiple issues with these edits. Discuss on talk first. If you add something that gets removed, you either walk away from that edit or start a discussion on the talk page making a case, and explaining "why that content should be added into the article". You are not following WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN and instead you are starting with an assumption that your edits were CONSENSUS VERSION and the person removing it has to explain. Please read WP:STATUSQUO and understand it well, before jumping into edit wars on contentious topics.

As regards to the new section thread, Just by splitting a subsection isn't helping here. You have still not explained why the content you are trying to edit war into the article needs to be included here. Unless You make your case first how do you expect me to respond ? --DBigXrayᗙ 09:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You aren't engaging me in conversation, so I'm assuming we're done here?

• WP:STATUSQUO states, "It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling."
• WP:BRD states, "If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle" - You've reverted at least three times [36][37][38], so you are not following WP:BRD
• WP:BURDEN states, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." - Which I have done:

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague attributed high casualties to India diverging from UK military recommendations, attempting a frontal assault on the militants.

Your relevance argument is satisfied by the above citations. You have still not addressed why this is a primary source. --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Sikhs have traditionally been concentrated in Punjab region

• The Sikhs have traditionally been concentrated in Punjab region of undivided India although not in a majority.
  

Hi Elephanthunter, I am not sure why you are removing this line. Do you not agree with this line ? your edit summary is not clear to me. care to explain and elaborate more on this ? --DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I only would like to change it to The Sikhs have traditionally been concentrated in Punjab region.[39], since that's uncontroversial. "Undivided India" is an odd word choice not reflected in any source material. It appears to be an insertion of some kind of WP:POV nationalist view into an article about separatism. The addition of "although not in majority" looks like it might be WP:SYNTHESIS thrown in to delegitimize the creation of a Khalistan state. This is now contested uncited material, so per WP:BURDEN I'm going to remove the contested material unless you have adequate supporting citations. Just a refresher, since you seem unfamiliar with how burden works on Wikipedia (having reverted [40] my change where I stated this was contested [41]):

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

So, if you find a supporting citation that phrases things in that manner, feel free to restore and we can revisit. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Well then lets start looking for sources, till then this line stays off the article. P.S. I still did not get a reply from you on why this line is contradicted in the next line of the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:52, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Sant Jarnail Singh

Hello,

My name Gurmukh Singh and I believe in Khalistan and I do not agree with how the text is very one-sided.Under the editing section, Wikipedia has kindly asked us to edit this article so that it is not one-sided. However I see the terms terrorist,radical and militant. Calling sant ji a terrorist was not the cleverest move. I personally think that he wasn't one and so do the vast mojority of Sikhs. The indian Government said that the was a terrorist from the years leading up to 84 due to the fact that he was gave a number of fiery speeches. If making a fiery speech makes you a terrorist then there surely are many terrorists in this world. Does this make Shakespeare a terrorist? Does it make a member of parliment a terrorist? The answer to these- NO.

The author/editor of this inacurate article have incorrectly stated that Sant Bindranwale wished for Khalistan however in an interview in 1983 when he was asked about this he said- "I am not against Khalistan, niether am I for it. If we are given it however we will take it."

I aslo notice how there were few if not no mentions of the many rapes and murders that wre commited against Sikhs in the 10 years after 1984. I would like to see this changed.

Really wishing for a debate cuz im real bored in lockdown. Stay safe Neverforegt84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverforget84 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Misleading information about movement

Most of articles has been supported by Hindu newspaper... Please check the facts before posting articles... Karomun kaur (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Claims on Pakistan

Khalistan movement has no credible claims on Pakistan, this POV is pushed by Indian nationalist and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.175.178.17 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Such is the political, psychological and religious attachment of the Sikhs to that city that a Khalistan without Lahore would be like a Germany without Berlin."</ref> as well as other areas of both countries, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Sindh in Pakistan; and Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and parts of Jammu and Kashmir, and Rajasthan in India.[3][4] Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan, according to Jagjit Singh Chohan, had proposed to make Nankana Sahib (currently in Pakistan) the capital of Khalistan during his talks with Chohan following the conclusion of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.[5]"

The first is an opinion of an author and not a realistic claim by the Khalistani moment. The second is a recounting of a claim that the Khalistan movement would be based in Nankana Sahib, not that Nankana Sahib would be the capital of a Khalistan state.

There is a difference between aspirational claims and active movements. While movement is largely active in Eastern Punjab its claims are varied which is mentioned in detail in the refs and the article. Please discuss before disrupting long-standing leads. Gotitbro (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Citations for various claims

The article lacks proper citations for multiple sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.76.234.142 (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2021

Requesting reversion of POV/OR edits made on 28 January 2021, to the previous long-standing more neutral version of 10 January. Sapedder (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sapedder: Done --Elephanthunter (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Partition of India, 1947

"Partition of India, 1947

British Punjab Province, in 1909

Before the 1947 partition of India, Sikhs were not in majority in any of the districts of pre-partition British Punjab Province other than Ludhiana (where Sikhs formed 41.6% of the population).[23] Rather, districts in the region had a majority of either the Hindus or Muslims depending on its location in the province."

The term 'were not in majority' here seems to be used to refer to the Sikhs not having a plurality in any of the districts of the punjab other than the small district of Ludhiana. A majority is not a plurality, and the paragraph needs to be rephrased in terms of plurality. Comiscuous (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

This page should be edited to remove the term separatist and or replace it with Independence. The issue term with separatists is that it is not inclusionary and can be viewed as The outsiders in today's society. Independence signifies in approach that the masses can relate to. 47.152.141.122 (talk) 14:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Xinjiang Uyghur.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The Real Khalistan Resolution

The Khalistan movement was first requested by the Soviets in 1944 to make a Communist protectrate in Punjab as Sikhs were seen as fierce fighters according to Soviets however the British Refused as Punjab was a major Strength for them so when indra gandhis goverment came the Soviets again asked them and she agreed by then Sikhs were revolting against the goverment to make thier own nation as half of thier land was partitioned and went to Pakistan So Gandhi asked the Sikhs if they wanted “a”Khalistan which the Sikhs said happily said yes to Subramanian Swamy has also confirmed this.

The Dharam Yudh Morcha was started because Indhra Gandhi had not given them “a” Khalistan So thats why the started the movement. The weaponisation of the Akal Takht was first Done by the Sikh Guru Hargobind Ji as he brought two swords to the Akal Takht. Akal Takht (Immortal Throne) is where the Akal Sena (Immortal Army) lives so weapons are allowed there so Bhindranwale did not do a bad thing And Bhindranwale didnt ask for “a” Khalistan again it was given by Indra Gandhi and Bhindranwale never lived in the Golden Temple. The Movement was started to wake Sikhs up to make them realise that they were becoming Slaves of the Goverment. And all the belligerents of Khalistan are fake as there were no connections to Pakistan or China but US did supply weapons to The KLA (Khalistan Liberation Army) and belligerents of India were the KGB, Punjab Police , CRPF , BSF , British SAS and the Indian Army and all the weapons found by the Military were placed by the Army personnel so The Sikhs never demanded Khalistan. As for today Punnus Khalistan is fake Khalistan as it is different from Old Khalistan. Thank You

Please i would like to request that please remove the old information as it is Misleading and it furthers make more tensions between Sikhs and hindus

}} Aleksandr Amedeus Volkov (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Term Khalistan

Khalistan is the Persian word for Pure Land (خالستان) Aleksandr Amedeus Volkov (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixed typo in Khalistan Aleksandr Amedeus Volkov (talk) 16:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of the Baloch People.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Grammar

Under the militancy section it says “Some sections of the Sikh diaspora also began join the separatists with financial and diplomatic support”

Shouldn’t it be “began joining” not “began join”? 2600:1700:BA0:FC40:0:0:0:29 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

fixed, thanks.--RegentsPark (comment) 02:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Air India Canada Bombing

Air India, Canada Bombing is a major event in Khalistan movement. The article doesn't mention that. 2601:647:5B00:63B0:8E96:CF60:EFC8:37D7 (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Jinnah's Offer

Please add a sub-heading, "Jinnah's Offer", before "Partition of India, 1947" under the main heading "Pre-1950s".

Dr. Ahmed writes in his book, Punjab -Bloodied, Partitioned and Cleansed:

In several interviews with informed Pakistanis, I was told that Jinnah offered very generous terms to the Sikhs to dissuade them not to demand the partition of the Punjab if India was partitioned. This claim is amply corroborated by the article “I remember Jinnah’s offer of Sikh state” by the late Maharaja of Patiala published in The Tribune of 19 July 1959. Apparently Lord Mountbatten was also present as were Liaquat Ali Khan and his wife. Some of the extracts are given below:

“We had a drink and went in to dine. The talks started, and offers were made by Mr Jinnah for practically everything under the sun if I would agree to his plan. There were two aspects. One was based on the idea of a Rajasthan and the other one for separate Sikh state — Punjab minus one or two districts in the south. I had prolonged talks with Master Tara Singh, Giani Kartar Singh and other Sikh leaders, and all the negotiations on behalf of the Sikhs were within my knowledge. Indeed, in some ways I had quite a deal to do with them. I told Mr. Jinnah that I could not accept either of his two proposals, and told him a lot of what was on my mind. Liaquat Ali and Begum Liaquat Ali were most charming to me, and went out of their way to offer, on behalf of the Muslim League, everything conceivable. I was to be Head of this new Sikh State, the same as in Patiala. The Sikhs were to have their own army and so on.

All these things sounded most attractive, but I could not accept them as being practical, and neither could I in the mood I was in, change my conviction. The talk lasted till past midnight. Lord Mountbatten was a patient listener, occasionally taking part. He eventually said that perhaps Mr Jinnah and I could meet again at some convenient date.”

There was another meeting of Jinnah with some notable Sikh leaders like Maharaja of Patiala, Hardit Singh, Master Tara Singh and Giani Kartar Singh. Hardit Sing recalls:

“Jinnah started by saying that he was very anxious to have the Sikhs agree to Pakistan and he was prepared to give them everything that they wanted, if they could accept Pakistan. I said to him, “Mr Jinnah you are being very generous, but we would like to know exactly what our position will be.” Jinnah retorted, saying “you will have a Government, you will have a Parliament and you will have Defence forces, what part will the Sikhs have in all these.” He further said, “are you familiar with what happened in Egypt? I will deal with the Sikhs as Zaghlul Pasha dealt with the Copts (the Christian minority) when Egypt became independent.” He then went on to tell us the story. According to Jinnah, the Copts when they first met Zaghlul Pasha put forward some demands. After listening to them he advised them to go back, think the whole thing over and come to see him again with a paper incorporating all their demands. They did this. Zaghlul Pasha took the paper from them and without reading it wrote on it “I agree.” Mr Jinnah added, “That is what I will do with the Sikhs.”

Hardit Singh further recalls, “this put us in an awkward position. We were determined not to accept Pakistan under any circumstances and here was the Muslim Leader offering us everything. What to do?”

Then I had an inspiration and I said, “Mr Jinnah, you are being very generous. But supposing, God forbid, you are no longer there when the time comes to implement your promise?”

“His reply was astounding”. He said, “My friend, my word in Pakistan will be like the word of God. No one will go back on it.”

Hardit recalls, “there was nothing to be said after this and the meeting ended.”

Wildhorse3 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 July 2022

The flag on the Khalistan movement page is not related to the Khalistan movement. The flag above is the original flag of this movement which can often be seen in pro-Khalistan rallies, I think Wikipedia should use the right information especially on such controversial issues. It is my request that the existing flag should be replaced with the original flag as above. Thank you.

2409:4055:88:D860:0:0:1FA1:AC (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 September 2022

Tamanpreet Kaur (talk) 08:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This article needs a category of Punjab because this is generally related to it.

 Question: I see that Category:History of Punjab, India (1947–present) is already included which is a sub-category of Category:Punjab. According to WP:CATSPECIFIC we wouldn't generally add both of these, only the most specific. There may be other sub-categories of Punjab that apply though. Is there another sub-category you think should be used here? --N8_wilson 🔔 22:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Tamanpreet Kaur for awareness. --N8_wilson 🔔 22:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing the status of the Chief Minister to that an Ex

Amarinder Singh is no longer the Chief Minister of Punjab presently, so in the lead paragraph he should be designated as 'Ex-Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claimed in 2018 that ....' or 'The then Chief Minister of Punjab Amarinder Singh claimed in 2018 that the ...' Wpakxl (talk) 09:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wpakxl: Just verified that Bhagwant Mann is the Chief Minister of Punjab. Updated the lede. Thanks! 〜 ⠀snowy🌼mead͘ows˙ 03:00, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Someone removed lots of information and the template and didn’t explain themselves. This should be reverted. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Asian Religions in America

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dogwalker25 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Stormageddon623, Savoryyyy.

— Assignment last updated by Ziegenbalg66 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! This is my plan for editing this page:

This page is quite long, so I only plan on improving parts of it. My first step would be to add more hotlinks within the page to give more clarity to the reader. While reading this article, I had to look up terms and events that the article assumed I knew about, and it would make more sense for these to be linked to other Wikipedia articles. For example, this article brings up the “Dharam Yudh Morcha”, with no convenient hotlink. I had to look this term up in order to understand that it is a political movement. Sections of this article overuse quotations which, in my opinion, confuses the reader. Although the quotes provide useful information, their overuse in a single sentence gives an improper tone. For example, the paragraph about R&AW starts as follows: In later disclosures from former R&AW special secretary G.B.S. Sidhu, R&AW itself helped "build the Khalistan legend," actively participated in the planning of Operation Blue Star. While posted in Ottawa, Canada in 1976 to look into the "Khalistan problem" among the Sikh diaspora, Sidhu found "nothing amiss" during the three years he was there. The quotations embody a breezy and emotive style, which is not fit for an encyclopedia. I also want to add more sources to make this article more trustworthy. In particular, I found two books from the Skidmore Library: The third Sikh war? : towards or away from Khalistan? and Democracy and counterterrorism : lessons from the the past. These sources are not yet included on the Wikipedia page, and I hope to read them and find valuable information to include. Brill’s Encyclopedia of Hinduism Online is also not cited in this article, and I think incorporating it would add to the credibility of the page.

Dogwalker25 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

— Assignment last updated by Earlgray68 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

Add under “…in a pamphlet titled Khalistan.”

The idea of ‘Khalistan’ first appeared in a pamphlet published by Dr V.S. Bhatti in Ludhiana which proposed a “a Khalistan led by the Maharaja of Patiala with the aid of a cabinet consisting of representative federating units.” These would consist of three main areas: the central districts of Punjab province then directly administered by the British, including Ludhiana, Jalandhar, Ambala, Ferozpur, Amritsar and Lahore; the 'princely states' of the Cis-Sutlej, including Patiala, Nabha, Faridkot and Malerkolta; and the 'Shimla Group' of states.”. This idea was supported by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, the leader of Hindu Mahasabha in 1941, as a counter to Muslim League. Savarkar assured the Sikhs that "when the Muslims woke from their day-dreams of Pakistan, they would see established instead a Sikhistan in the Punjab.” Savarkar not only talked of Hindudom, Hindu Nation and Hindu Raj, but he wanted to depend upon the Sikhs in the Punjab to establish a Sikhistan. . Gopalchan45678 (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Way too detailed for a lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2022

I beleive the information is wrong and could use more citations to verify why it is wrong. Khalsa Mishima (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 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. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2022 (2)

Hello, some of the information is wrong and should be verified, edited and added to the page. I beleive I can fix it to keep Wikipedia up to standered. Can I have permission to edit it? Thank you. Khalsa Mishima (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2022 (2)

Add below “ in a pamphlet titled "Khalistan"”:

The Sikh newspaper Liberator in 1947 supported the idea of Khalistan, mentioning “The Golden Temple at Amritsar, brings joy of hope to the misery-stricken Sikhs of the West Punjab who are once again gathering round it in their millions, creating a homeland for once scattered Sikh people.” 89.240.96.14 (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: Too detailed and specific for lede. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)