Talk:Separatist movements of India/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Propaganda Style Writing?

Each of the separatist portions are recorded as "one of the highest turn over in election". Since when does Election turn over mean that they don't want a separate state? East Pakistan had highest turn over in 1970, and the seceded from the Pakistan. Article should point out whether Unionist or Separatist parties won the elections. Also, whether vote rigging was done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.211.215.186 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Impression of Inclusion of 'Voter Turnout' Is a Sign of Devaluing the Separatist-Movements

It is ridiculous for anyone to read the article that contains several sub-titles, all of those carrying 'voter turnout' references; as though it should devalue or ward off any critical thought about 'separatist movements in India'!(SarfarazLarkanian 15:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC))

Aspirant states of India

The article Aspirant states of India does not deal with all states listed in this article. Is this correct? Indya1000 14:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm not an expert!--86.29.134.207 (talk) 01:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(At 14:58, 9 August 2009, JL-Bot was the last one to make a good edit.) --Daccooźlaccoik (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

See Separatist movements of Pakistan.--The corridor head end! (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no demand for a separate Dravidistan! It used to be in 1960s not anymore. -- Pradeep90 —Preceding undated comment added 23:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Unexplained removal

Is there any explaination for the sourced content that was removed from the article and the unsourced content added to replace it? --lTopGunl (ping) 13:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

What was removed and you reverted back has no citations[1], I have removed it again, please do not add uncited content to articles. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI. the one citation there does no support the content.[2] Section on National Democratic Front of Bodoland is sourced to an article about the ULFA, not the NDFB. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The removal was unexplained and citations were atleast present, see for your self. I'll review the citations if that is the issue. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

TG, one cite was present, the rest is unsourced. The one cite does not support the content so it was removed per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Darkness please stop stalking users and there sourced edits 109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagged as POV and inaccurate Darkness Shines (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though I don't endorse that you are right, but still you posted that warning on my talk page for reverting the previous editor's unexplained removal. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The recent CSD tags by the blanking user should be taken as vandalism after repeated warnings on his talk page for first removing the content and now tagging it as a hoax. --lTopGunl (ping) 19:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no citation given in the Two section (Arunachal Pradesh and Other states of India) of the Article which I marked as Hoax so it is not vandalism as I didn't delete anything. Please provide a Citation for the Section I marked as Hoax or get it deleted. Don't indulge in undo war. Ashok4himself (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You tagged the article for deletion and canvassed a user of your choice to help you here. You also blanked the page without giving any reasons till now. What else is vandalism. --lTopGunl (ping) 20:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I deleted only those things that were not relevant. They undid that. And I put hoax tag on Two sections and I didn't asked for its deletion. Those Two section are infact Hoax and the whole article is misleading as a whole giving scenarios of 1980-1990s. Ashok4himself (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Other states of India:- Citation needed.

This section don't have citation, so I am removing it as a cleanup. Please undo this section only if you can provide references. Hynaboy (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC) — Hynaboy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have reverted this edit for the time being, I have added "citation needed" tags to each movement. In case the information is undue, uncited, or insignificant, it will be deleted. Many of these names have not even been heard by people in the security forces, but we will check nevertheless. AshLin (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to revert you. Unsourced information can be removed at any time. If you want it in, put in in-line citations. Buddy431 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

There's a consensus on this. It's a work in progress. Don't revert. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If it's a work in progress, do it in your user space. When you have in-line citations supporting your edits, you can move it to the article. From WP:V: "Anything that requires but lacks a source may be removed". I am doing that, as per policy. If you don't like it, either put in in-line citations, or work to change the policy (unlikely to be successful). Buddy431 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

What you are doing here is blanking of stubs. That is disruptive. Further more when all the editors here have agreed on that, you don't need to continue the editwar by the user in above section who is now blocked for the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I ~~don't~~ think you're mistaken about what a WP:STUB is. In any case, even stubs must adhere to wp:V. All information in articles must be sourced. Perhaps we should ask for a third opinion or some other form of dispute resolution. I maintain that unsourced information does not belong in this, or any other, article. Buddy431 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Before blanking the whole article, read WP:CONSENSUS. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, there is good reason to delete most of these sites. An analysis of sites has been done by a security specialist whose findings state that the following sites are most likely fake:

Bengal Liberation Army
Gujarat Swarajya Sangh
Maratha Rashtra Parishad
Oriya Mahasabha party
Rajputana Liberation Front
Dalit secessionists mentioned as "Dalitstan Organisation".

The ref is: Robert Cromwell (24 April 2009). "India, Pakistan, Jammu and Kashmir, and militant groups based in or supported from Pakistan". Separatist, Para-military, Military, Intelligence, and Political Organizations. http://www.cromwell-intl.com/. Retrieved 31 December 2011. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= and |work= (help); line feed character in |title= at position 7 (help)

Only Sikkim National Party has a possibility of retention but as Sikkim National People's Party which is a non-notable fringe party in Sikkim having the same views as ascribed to Sikkim National Party.

The list is so arranged that it appears that an anonymous ip (probable POV Indophobe) has copied most of the material directly from this site and added this list this November. Even the names are in the same sequence.

The deletion by Buddy431 is vindicated. The only possible retention could be the Sikkim National People's Party. which could be moved to the Northeast section. However, there is so little activity other than stances taken in public rallies, it has no military wing, and has done nothing notable for years. It needs to be deleted on other grounds ie WP:UNDUE. AshLin (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be organized by active and inactive insurgencies as well. Well then citations need to be poured in along with the content, for that ^{[citation needed]} tags are used so that editors who see them find citations. If the content is totally removed right away, there's no chance for that other than taking up time of already involved editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed tags are a courtesy sometimes given to some unsourced content to encourage others to find citations. Any editor has the right to remove any unsourced content. wp:V is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia - our content must be sourced, especially when there is some controversy over the content, as there is here. The information should not be in the article at all without a citation. Buddy431 (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (reply to Top Gun) Dont confuse fake insurgencies for real ones. In my opinion this is a mischievious and bad edit - completely POV - adding fake info to WP. I'm surprised you are condoning it and arguing for its retention. I reverted the deletion as I just wanted to be sure to determine what is real and what is blatantly false. That has been done. I have also discovered in that process that SNPP (not SNP as alleged here) exists but is non-notable as far as active secessionists go. Next, considering your point, if it exists as in case of SNPP, just a seccesionist stance by a political party does not make it notable for retention unless it has acted against the state and it/its military wing been banned by the Government. Just providing a reference is not enough, any factneeds to be defendable under WP:UNDUE also. Retention of facts with ^{[citation needed]} tags may be done where information is true but needs verifiable references for authority, not for highly suspicious information which was placed under a cloud pending investigation and has since been proved patently false. On the other hand, this article has great scope for genuine development which is where editors should spend their time instead. AshLin (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on keeping any data, I'm insisting on not just blanking the article without even checking for any content that does not have a citation on it. You verified it, good enough. But continuing Ashok's editwar, which was completely unexplained till the end, with one letter acronyms as a reason was what I rebutted. The article does need expansion, if the current content is verified to be undue - it has to be cross checked with other sources as well as the current insurgencies have to be added along with the inactive. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works that information stays out of articles, until it has been verified in a source. If you don't like a one letter acronymn, try Wikipedia:Verifiability, as well as Wikipedia:Citing sources. The information SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN THE ARTICLE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Information, whether true or not, doesn't belong at all in the article until it's verified with Reliable Sources. If the article needs expansion, then expand it, WITH SOURCES. Look, Unlike AshLin, I don't even really care about the information. I do care that what's in the article is properly sourced. Buddy431 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Caps'ing and bold'ing will not help your case here. You started here with an editwar... that's not how the wiki works. When you are reverted, you have to bring it to talk instead of edit warring and making top on edits. I didn't even verify the content myself and I don't care what all insurgencies are there, the one I added myself (Kashmir) was well cited, but verifiability is not a pretext of blanking articles when there was consensus to leave it there and check. Anyway there's no point in telling you that now since you're past that. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, Verifiability is a valid pretext for removing sections that are unsourced, or even deleting entire articles without proper sources. I don's see any consensus here for that information, just one guy who keeps claiming there is. But even if there was such a consensus, that doesn't override the core policies of Wikipedia, of which wp:Verifiability is one. I suggest you read that page closely before adding any more content to an article. You appear to have a key misunderstanding about how content is added to Wikipedia. Buddy431 (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the policies... there's no place for an editwar here. WP:EDITWAR doesn't say if you think you are following policies you can editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately TG has a habit of reverting uncited content into articles and accusing others of edit warring when they follow WP:V. I have warned him several times now about this. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, you've previously been warned of this. If you comment on me again I will report you. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not comment on you, I commented on your shoddy editing. Big difference there. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, there's not, you've commented on a habit you assumed of me. Keep your comments to the content. Also you need to read WP:CIVIL. You've been warned on both my talk page and ANI not to make minor uncivil personal attacks, lest you assume keeping a bit low on it will not make a valid point for a report. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Not assumed, proven. Please comment on content, as in the unsourced content you keep reverting into articles. Sorry, but the proof is in the pudding. Also I have not made a PA here, "You are a shoddy editor" would be a PA. "your shoddy editing" (in reference to your edit warring unsourced content into articles) is not a PA. Happy new year BTW. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't hear it then. Finally that you remember to comment on the content, see my comments above (which you should have read before). I'm done commenting. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Please remove the map of NorthEast India which is in chinese and projects Arunachal Pradesh as disputed territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vmpatil 26 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

insurgency

From the beginning, the article treats insurgency as though it were more or less equivalent with separatism. This suggests an anti-separatist bias, seeking maybe to equate the legitimate wish for independence with foreign military intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.103.159 (talk) 09:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Manipuri 'government in exile'

Just parking here a couple of good sources on this affair:

Manipur dissident leaders announce a ‘government in exile’ in U.K., The Hindu, 30 October 2019.
Arunabh Saikia, Anxiety over Naga settlement sparks protests in Manipur – and even a ‘government-in-exile’, Scroll.in, 31 October 2019.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

Bigfoot Yeti, since you refuse to read the WP:NPOV policy, here are some extracts for you:

NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects.
This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus.
Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as neutrality means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without editorial bias.

You are not required to edit this article. If you edit, you are required to edit in an NPOV way. Putting a {{Main}} means that you have summarised it an NPOV way. See template:Main. Picking up a silly announcements of two charlatans just because you happened to find it in Al Jazeera, is not NPOV. I have given two solid sources of the same affair in the section above. Have you even looked at them? Have you read the Insurgency in Manipur article?

Please answer these questions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Genocide upon the innocent Sikhs, over 2,500,000 Sikhs died

"Indian security forces suppressed the insurgency in the early 1990s by doing genocide upon the innocent Sikhs, over 2,500,000 Sikhs died according to Jaswant Sikh Khalra who was also killed by the Police in a fake encounter for being against the Government.[35]"

Is this claim accurate, I can't find any such statements in the linked article? The total number of deaths seem to be in the tens of thousands, not millions.

Move

I've undid the undiscusssed move to Violence in North-East India -- violence may include any expression of physical force (e.g. domestic violence or a man stabbing another man in a bar over money matters). This article is not about generic violence -- it's about separatist violence. utcursch | talk 11:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Upheaval not documented

According to the news, hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced due to violence. But you wouldn't know that by this page. Just a listing of organizations. Student7 (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Insurgency in Northeast India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Insurgency in Northeast India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090913175312/http://www.sinlung.com:80/category/northeast to http://www.sinlung.com/category/northeast

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Insurgency in Northeast India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~ksg/data/eacd_notes.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.dailyexcelsior.com/web1/08july19/national.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070716051523/http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/Latimer04.pdf to http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/research/theses/Latimer04.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140909031515/http://www.thesangaiexpress.com/page/items/41765/ne-rebels-call-general-strike-on-i-day to http://www.thesangaiexpress.com/page/items/41765/ne-rebels-call-general-strike-on-i-day

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)