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

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)

100% agree with @Prabhjote1 and @astrolamp. What Prabhjote1 mentioned should definitely be added to this article. 2604:3D08:7A8E:2B00:8B36:3388:5281:193F (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

In order to mantain neutrality, I think adding "The invasion occurred due to the housing of an terrorist, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and lead to the death of Indira Gandhi" would be helpful.

This statement is backed by the following sources:

1. Mark Juergensmeyer (2004). "From Bhindranwale to Bin Laden: The Rise of Religious Violence" (PDF). eScholarship. University of California. Retrieved 2024-09-15.

2. Mark Juergensmeyer (2007). "From Bhindranwale to Bin Laden: A Search for Understanding Religious Violence". In John R. Hinnells; Richard King (eds.). Religion and Violence in South Asia: Theory and Practice. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-37290-9. Retrieved 2024-09-15.

3. Prem Mahadevan (2013). "Terrorism and Religious Violence in South Asia". In Jianhong Liu; Bill Hebenton; Susyan Jou (eds.). Handbook of Asian Criminology. World Scientific. ISBN 978-1-4614-5218-8. Retrieved 2024-09-15.

4. Darshan Singh Tatla (1990). "The Sikh Diaspora: The Search for Statehood". Studies in Conflict & Terrorism. 13 (4–5): 221–238. doi:10.1080/10576109108435880. Retrieved 2024-09-15.

5. Gurnam Singh (2023). Terrorism through the Ages. Kalpaz Publications. p. 159. ISBN 9789394804593. Retrieved 2024-09-15.

6. Kaur, Ravneet (2019). "Operation Blue Star: A Brief Study". Annales Universitatis Mariae Curie-Skłodowska, sectio K – Politologia. 26 (1): 123–132. doi:10.17951/k.2019.26.1.123-132. PrakitEnjoyer (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Biasedness and reversing edits.

@Southasianhistorian8 Please mention your reasoning for reverting a perfectly healthy edit calling it "puffery". I haven't deleted anything, just added more information regarding the movement. The "independence struggle seeking to create a separate homeland" line gives us a very objective idea of this whole movement than just calling it just a "separatist movement". How is this false praise/puffery? Aren't you just presuming Bad Faith on my part at this point? Also I did some other minor edits in the same edit, which got reverted by your blanket reversal. Care to explain what were wrong in those edits?

I'm assuming you're somewhat against using the word "independence" and only use the word "separatism" for this movement but that's not how wikipedia functions. This isn't an ideological battleground where one word must rule supreme because it benefits one party's interests.

I have also seen your user history and it's broadly India related edits with a lot of them having an apparent ideological/subjective stance. This article is "controversial" as well as having the "contentious tag", which makes your edits come into more scrutiny.

You have been warned multiple times by other users for multiple reasons, and some of them as recent as August 2024, and yet you continue doing the same thing.

Lastly, I don't want to have an Edit War. If you don't respect the dispute resolution process and continue reverting my edits I will have to contact an adminstrator, and not just for this edit. A professional editor/admin can easily see the patterns of editing and vandalism much better than me. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 15:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Contact whomever you want to contact, it's obvious your edit undermines the neutrality of the page, in particular through your removal of the descriptor "militant" to describe the Punjab insurgency, even though it is common knowledge and there is an abundance of scholarly work that detail numerous Sikh separatist militants committing violent acts against civilians during this time, and your addition of the word "struggle" at the end of the lead, which clearly intends to evoke sympathy for the movement/ideology.

@RegentsPark, could you weigh in here? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

And contrary to your convictions, it is you that is violating Wikipedia's norms and guidelines. WP:ONUS states that the burden lies upon the person seeking to change the status quo of an article to gain consensus to implement their changes, as you are trying to do. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@SoloKnowHow83, I'm fine with calling it an independence movement, but for now you need to reinstate "militant" to describe the Punjab insurgency and remove "struggle" from the lead. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Southasianhistorian8 The whole insurgency was not "militant", parts of it were. The next line in the article tells us that. People interested in the militant part can go the specific article. Using a blanket statement like that here violates the neutrality standards.

I am ready to change the word "struggle" if you can give an explanation why it is not apt. Also please recommend other synonymous words we can use here. Thank you. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Southasianhistorian8 I already gave my reasons to change the status quo but you're using WP:Stonewalling tactics. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Southasianhistorian8 Answer the substantative questions without deviating.

The descriptor "militant" was used without viable citation in that line. You're using your own subjective standards here. It doesn't matter if you have abundance of scholarly work if they arent cited or to the context.

"Struggle" is often used with "Independence" but sure you again assume bad faith of "symapthy". You could have atleast changed the word but you used a blanket reversal.

@RegentsPark, I don't know who you're but please look at this users edit history and Talk Page. This doesn't seem like a unique thing. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 15:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's rules, a lead does not need to include citations as long as the topic is discussed in the body, which it does. There is no consensus for including the word "struggle" to label the movement, so you are again contravening Wikipedia's rules by adding it. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Southasianhistorian8 Nothing is airtight. Citations may not necessary for general cases but unique cases can arise where it maybe necessary. Anyway I am not asking for citations because I accept this is a "separatist" movement as has been discussed in this article. That's why I haven't removed it.

Wikipedia doesn't need consensus until there is a conflict arising, which it has. But Wikipedia also demands substantative arguments for removal of a word, presuming bad faith like a user having some kind of "sympathy" doesn't exactly fits that bill. "Independence struggle" is a very popular word and is used everywhere to describe "Indpendence movements". I used it to make the sentence better flowing and grammatically accurate.

I am nonetheless agrreable to a change and again ask you to recommend synonymous words. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

If I didn't use the word "struggle" and used "movement", the sentence would be "Khalistan movement is an Independence movement..." which isn't the best grammatical way to express the idea. Never knew that my struggle to find an appropriate word would lead to this immense debate. SoloKnowHow83 (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my main point of contention is the sentence at the end: "alleging their involvement in violent attacks and homicides on Canadian citizens supporting this struggle which replaced the sentence "Canadian Sikh separatists". Firstly because the citizens in Canada who support this movement are predominantly Sikhs, by including a broad label like "Canadian citizens", it would imply that the movement has significant support across religious and ethnic lines in Canada, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support that.

The inclusion of "supporting this struggle" strategically placed at the very end, to me at least, seems to be a tactic to unduly elicit sympathy for the movement; "struggle" is often appended to militant movements, many of which target civilians, as a way to absolve said movement and to portray it as a group of people fighting a more powerful and insidious opponent denying them a fundamental right. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Third opinion

To the third opinion provider, please indicate whether you support the ending sentence in the paragraph to be:

1) In October 2024, Canada expelled the Indian High Commissioner to Canada and five other diplomats, alleging their involvement in violent attacks and homicides on Canadian Sikh separatists.

or

2) In October 2024, Canada expelled the Indian High Commissioner to Canada and five other diplomats, alleging their involvement in violent attacks and homicides on Canadian citizens supporting this struggle.

My stance is that the first version contains far more neutral, encyclopedic language as per the paragraph above: Just to clarify, my main point of contention is the sentence at the end: "alleging their involvement in violent attacks and homicides on Canadian citizens supporting this struggle which replaced the sentence "Canadian Sikh separatists". Firstly because the citizens in Canada who support this movement are predominantly Sikhs, by including a broad label like "Canadian citizens", it would imply that the movement has significant support across religious and ethnic lines in Canada, and there is no evidence whatsoever to support that. The inclusion of "supporting this struggle" strategically placed at the very end, to me at least, seems to be a tactic to unduly elicit sympathy for the movement; "struggle" is often appended to militant movements, many of which target civilians, as a way to absolve said movement and to portray it as a group of people fighting a more powerful and insidious opponent denying them a fundamental right.

SoloKnowHow83 disagrees and believes it to be neutral and unbiased. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 03:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

This is the first official Third Opinion I've ever provided. I'm happy to help. I support option 1 for two reasons: 1. "This struggle" is very unclear and unspecific. You can describe basically any political movement as a "struggle" as there would always be opposition, right? Imo, this is WP:PUFFERY and extends the claim longer than it should. 2. Basically what SAH is saying; the use of the word "struggle" also "elicits sympathy for the movement". SAH seems to have explained it better than I could, so I'll just leave it like this, I agree with him. 3. Also what SAH said; changing "Canadian Sikh separatists" to "Canadian citizens" is too broad for no reason. Again, first Third Opinion I've given. I don't really know how formal this is supposed to be, so I'll leave this as my answer. TheWikiToby (talk) 02:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @TheWikiToby. I agree completely with your assessment. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2024

Suggest changing "Pakistan has long aspired to dismember India through its Bleed India strategy." with "The Pakistani military has long fomented separatist insurgencies in India as part of its Bleed India strategy."

This phrasing is intended to present less bias.

Suggest replacing " Megalonychidae (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

See what the source says. Capitals00 (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

"To date, Canada has yet to provide any evidence of Indian involvement in the killing of Nijjar." should be changed to "Canada has not shared evidence of Indian involvement in the killing of Nijar, citing the need to protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods."

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canadian-authorities-have-intelligence-that-india-was-behind-slaying/

Justification The line "To date, Canada has yet to provide any evidence of Indian involvement in the killing of Nijjar." is true but lacks context. Canada has cited the need to protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods in not releasing evidence. This is standard practise in intelligence contexts. The US has also separately corroborated Canada's linking of the killing to the Indian government, stating that intelligence shared by five eyes was what made the link. (https://apnews.com/article/canada-us-india-sikh-activist-killing-intelligence-c475ac129e09e5f1c9ebf68eaaf247ab) Hex93 (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 13:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Canada-India diplomatic row

@Nyttend:, let's discuss the removed content here.

So I'm a bit flummoxed by your characterization of the content as not being relevant, the who row was spurred by India supposedly playing a role in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Khalistan leader in Canada who was involved in organizing numerous referendums in Canada surrounding the secession of Punjab from India, and he was accused by India of heading various Khalistani militant outfits. At the very, very least we need to mention that, given the significance of the event, I'd also say it should be in the lead. Following that, India and Canada expelled each others diplomats, an event that was a direct consequence of the killing, so I'd say that's relevant as well. In October 2024, Canada's RCMP alleged that Indian diplomats were involved in clandestine and covert operations which involved homicides, extortions, attacks on Sikh separatists aka Khalistanis, so how can you say that isn't relevant to the Khalistan movement? Strange.

I'm also pinging the two most recent, uninvolved editors on this page @Capitals00 and @Ratnahastin to see if they can also provide their thoughts on whether the Canada-India diplomatic row ought to be reinstated here. and if so, to what extent? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

A whole section does not belong here. Maybe a few sentences on a relevant section would be enough. Capitals00 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)