Talk:Separatist movements of India

Possible Bias.

I don't think its possible to deny this article has an extremely pro-Indian bias, you can just naturally tell by reading it, the person who wrote this clearly has a pro-Indian stance and it radiates propaganda from it, which shouldn't be on any Wikipedia article. Irregardless of the group in question, Wikipedia always must remain neutral even when talking about horrible groups like ISIS, the word "terrorist" should only be used if the group mainly operates through terror tactics and in complete honesty most of the time even when referring to actual Terrorists like ISIS or Al-qaeda they should still be referred to by their name, putting as an example (This just an example it isn't found in the article itself) "23 terrorist where neutralized" just makes it so obvious that the article is simply biased, putting "Terrorist" even when they are terrorists makes it seem as though you are not even giving them the befit of calling them by their name and putting neutralized instead of kill is just a way to make the "23" less gruesome by using a white wash term "neutralize", instead it should be "23 ISIS fighters died". Not only that but most of the groups here don't fit the definition of Terrorist, most of these groups seem like Armed Separatists, or Militants not terrorists.

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/National_Democratic_Front_of_Boroland#History https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_Liberation_Front_of_Assam https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/United_National_Liberation_Front Vallee01 (talk) 22:39, 15 April 202

Orphaned references in Insurgency in India

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Insurgency in India's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "satp1":

• From Naxalite–Maoist insurgency: "Fatalities in Left-wing Extremism: 1999-2016* (MHA)". Archived from the original on 8 October 2017. Retrieved 26 October 2014.
• From Prashant Bose: "Red Rot". Satp.org SOUTH ASIA INTELLIGENCE REVIEW Volume.9, No.5. 2010-09-08. Retrieved 2010-11-01.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Petition to rename this article to Insurgency in India

Separatism is a misleading word. Not all groups here advocate for a new nation or separation from India. Some groups like the Naxals want to overthrow the government whereas some northeastern groups want a separate state, UT or an Autonomous region within India. I also think the "movement" word is misleading because I feel, while of course some groups are highly organised, many groups here are not well organised or don't have much local support or military might. A movement indicates that the group is organised with many members but this is simply not the case for most. To - LearnIndology Flashthefastest
Rasalghul1711 (talk) 06:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Since we are not coming to a conclusion, could you maybe weigh in? It may be helpful if someone else says their opinion.

@Rasalghul1711:This article was supposed to include only those states that are demanding a separate country. For that the title "Separatist movements of India" is a correct title. Now there are many states that are demanding autonomy, separate state within India and what not, but "not a different country". For that a separate article can be created but inter state conflict doesn't belong in this article. I hope you understood. I recommend restoring article back to stable version [1]. LearnIndology (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@LearnIndology Why should an article include only separatist movements and not all the insurgent movements? This will just make it difficult for the reader to navigate properly. Besides some movements in J&K, Mizoram, Nagaland are a mix of both, wanting a separate country, wanting a separate state within India or overthrowing the government. So should we remove info about those J&K, Mizo and Naga separatists; just because they don't specifically adhere to your standard of wanting a separate country? I hope you understand that Insurgency is a better word. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 07:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Because this article is supposed to address separatist movements and not internal demands of Autonomy, and separate state within India. Let's have a third opinion. Pinging Kautilya3 LearnIndology (talk) 07:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@LearnIndology Are you suggesting I should make a separate article that includes all the insurgent movements of India? That seems rather pointless and a lot of info will overlap but I’ll do it if you don’t agree to change this article’s name. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Peition to merge this page and Insurgency in Northeast India

Insurgency in Northeast India is basically the same page like this except it is specifically about Northeast India. There is no need to have an article just about the Northeast and it is better to merge it will the insurgent groups all over India ie (this article). Please discuss
To - LearnIndology Flashthefastest Sgnpkd
(talk) 06:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr Since we are not coming to a conclusion, could you maybe weigh in? It may be helpful if someone else says their opinion.

Insurgency in Northeast is a notable topic, thus deserve to have an article. LearnIndology (talk) 07:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes insurgency is a notable topic and all the different insurgencies have their own separate Wikipedia article. There is no reason to have a article that is just a complication of all Northeastern insurgencies It only seems practical to have an article that talks about all the separatist movements. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This article included J&K, Punjab and NE. You were the one who bombarded this article with unwanted information on NE. LearnIndology (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@LearnIndology Unwanted? This article barely talked about NE, talking about just 2 states and didn’t even talk about the Naxal movement. It had little info about NE and most of it was poorly framed Rasalghul1711 (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I see no need for any reorganisation of pages, but I agree that this page is in bad shape.

Separatist movements are not necessarily "insurgencies". They could also be political movements. The article is indeed overweight on the northeast. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Kautilya3 Well ofcourse it has more info on the 7 states because in India they have the most separatist movements. It’s not like I am talking about one small separatist group on and on, the NE has several movements and I am trying to summarise them as much as I can. You can’t just simplify so many insurgencies into one sentence. Rasalghul1711 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Yakutumbism I think the merge should be undone. The insurgency in Northeast India is a conflict, while separatist groups are just that: groups. The two pages looked at different topics and deleting the conflict page makes finding information about it very difficult.

Naxalite insurgency

I think that the IP editor has got a valid point? TrangaBellam (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)