Talk:Sindhudesh movement

message: Seems to be no reliable sources about "sindhudesh".Bakaman 22:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR

message: Please do not introduce poorly sourced contents, opinions dont count as reliable sources specially for serious claims such as these, do not revert without proper sources, the one mentioned wont do. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ  00:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: for the India allegation, the Asian Tribune complies with WP:RS. You have not provided a clear rationale behind removing it. I'll look for other academic sources meanwhile. Mar4d (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale is as clear as it can be, Wiki does not allow opinion/editorials/wp:SPS as reliable sources, Asian tribune can be reliable for the news but not for the conspiracy theories and rants that are a part of writers opinion.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ  05:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, that's not entirely true. The perspectives of someone, if attributed to the author, are allowed to be used in articles. So when X writes for a newspaper, we would write it as: According to X, so and so happened because of this.. (etc.) I am going to re-insert that sentence now and attribute it to the author, which I have noticed, was not done previously. Thanks for pointing out. Mar4d (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this cannot be added, as I have clearly said above "rants and conspiracy theories cannot be added to a Encyclopedic article if the claims are not backed up by reliable sources". if I am a reporter and i publish my dreams in my op ed column, one cannot place it saying that Dbigxray once dreamt so and so about this issue in this newspaper. -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ  07:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  repeatedly introducing poorly sourced contents 

message: Seriously ? we need this in the article ? and look into the dates of the events in your references before reverting.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ  00:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes this is relevant, because this news made headlines while the rally was ongoing (I remember reading about it on TV in fact). The gun-trotting men of the JSQM were also violating the Government of Sindh's ban on display of weapons thus it fits into the context. And the other ref is simply about an earlier rally with low turnout. Don't revert content. Mar4d (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: it clearly says that march rally occured on 24 and this killing incident occured on 19, besides its not even clear about the perpetrators, The official wording says alleged, and you go one step furthur and claim of clear evidence ? -- ÐℬigXЯaɣ  05:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  shooting of the boy ?  

message: Can the author who wrote:
"This peace stopped after partition, with post-partition migrants to Sindh angry at the "non-co-operation" in the killing of Hindus; and communal hatred multiplied post partition." 
properly reference the article cited? The book is not properly cited, and no direct quotation is given to justify its incorporation into an unbiased account such as this. Further, the poor grammar leads me to suspect that the author of this line took liberties in his interpretation, and did not quote a reliable and accurate source.Willard84 (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Citation - April, 2012 

message: This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a well referenced; substantial article. --92.14.189.196 (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: Bhuttonazia (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Empty request RudolfRed (talk) 06:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 12 November 2012 

message: I want to change in the category "Sindhu Desh Liberation Army". i have found a page associated with this category. i want to add link of original article in this category.    
Insidesindh (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you're asking for a wikilink to the article "Sindhudesh Liberation Army", which was created two days ago.   Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 31 December 2012 

message: Sindh Taraqi Pasand Party demanding 1940 resolution and they rejected Sindhudesh Movement after 1988, i think delete this section from Sindhudesh. []  Insidesindh (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done --Rvd4life (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction needed  

message: #Added new flag: The previous flag of Sindhudesh used in this article was not an original flag used by nationalist organizations. Previous flag's axe was in the opposite direction. See Pakistan today's article where a lady is holding a play card printed  with the flag.  
#Added new article: Linked newly created article Jeay Sindh Students' Federation 
#Remove SUP: Removed linked article Sindh United Party, Becuase Sindh United Party is not a separatist organization. SUP believes in the 1940 resolution and not working for freedom of Sindhudesh.
Cuterajoo (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added new flag, linked JSSF and removed SUP 

message: , A lead should provide an accessible overview. Writing "One Unit policy", which is completely opaque and factually wrong (because it wasn't a "policy", it was implemented). And, for your information the page 88 of the source cited  has no mention of "One Unit" whatever anywhere in its vicinity. The first occurrence of "One Unit" on page 81 indeed calls it a "scheme". Finally, your ability to edit war with yourself is completely ridiculous. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Unit 

message: , your reinstatement of the dubious sentence "" is also quite inexplicable. And so is your edit summary "". Surely, you know that being "sourced" is not all there for a sentence to appear in the LEAD. The ABC's of LEAD-writing say
Where exactly is it covered in the body? And, worse where does the source say "" and ""? Who is the source here? A Pakistani DIG? Why is this occurring in connection with G. M. Syed who died in the 1990s? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you even read the source? It clearly mentions that nationalists associated with Sindhudesh were involved in terrorism funded by India? I am okay with changing it to that. Are you? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Did you read the policy that I took the trouble to copy here and display prominently? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Also the other edit makes the WP:LEAD clear. What is the exact opposition with the edit? IS this not the goal of Wikipedia to make the content more clear for the reader. Does it change it's meaning in any way? Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please read what the article states before to reach conclusions. First, this what it says "These suspects and their masters were funded by India to sabotage CPEC, attack Rangers and hit JuD assets, like its welfare wing Falah-i-Insaniyat Foundation". Now this a quote from a DIG in Pakistan and there is no proof provided which makes it allegations. The sentence which was added using this reference claims that "it is mainly funded by India". That does not co-relate with the content in the source. Second, the members are allegedly from Sindhudesh Revolutionary Arm while Sindhudesh is an umbrella term for many organizations. Thus my comment was it does not belong in this article but in the article of the Sindhudesh Revolutionary Army where it is already stated. Moreover, you know better that this does not live in the WP:LEAD at all given it is based on allegations with a single source.  Adamgerber80 (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that India has supported the Sindhudesh movement, or is accused of doing so, is attributed clearly enough to a Pakistani official source per Dawn, so it definitely meets the threshold of WP:V. What we can discuss is where it should be placed in the article, but so far as removing it is concerned, that's clearly a non-compromise. You are suggesting to remove something that is sourced. Mar4d (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The discussion is more than just the location it is also the wording of India funding. The wording generalizes more then the source provides and you also reverted something else without explanation. Discuss here if you wish to revert the rewording of the aim of the movement as well. They are two separate things. I am happy to discuss both but till then maintain WP:STATUSQUO. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adamgerber80: You did not, however, attempt to reword it but rather removed it altogether. That is the issue. Mar4d (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you read my comment carefully when it was removed, I had explained the reason briefly but I will go over again. I think that content is WP:UNDUE on this page. First, let's dissect the reference and what information is contained in it. It is regarding five members of the Sindhudesh Liberation Army who are arrested and charged with attacking CPEC and JuD facilities. Now this is the Pakistan DIG who alleges "These suspects and their masters were funded by India to sabotage CPEC". Can you please explain to me how this is WP:DUE on a page which is about Sindhudesh which is a movement under with multiple ideas and organizations. Even the goals of the movement change based on your recent edit with some wanting a more autonomous state within Pakistan and others want one which is independent from Pakistan. Sindhudesh Liberation Army has a small section on the page which seems correct based it is just one of the many parts of the movement and the sole representation of the movement. By associating allegations against one organization on a single source you are generalizing an entire movement and giving it far more WP:DUE than required. IMO, this content belongs in the page Sindhudesh Liberation Army where it is WP:DUE. In addition, even when this content is added to Sindhudesh Liberation Army it has to be discussed how it should be added since the current wording is plain WP:POV. These are allegations and that should be represented in the wording when it is added to Sindhudesh Liberation Army. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed with , Organizations like JSMM and Sindhudesh Liberation Army are banned in Pakistan, and allegations of Sabotage are also mentioned there. This article is about a movement, and organizations like Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz are not banned in Pakistan. If we talk about historical facts, even Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto regretted not creating Sindhudesh, So Bhutto was also Indian funded?. we cant generalize the whole movement as Indian founded. It's an Idea mostly used as a symbol of oppression. Cuterajoo (talk) 15:14, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainly funded 

message: Hello, NameIsShaheer here and this is more of a note to the moderators and administrators than a info.
Now I have to say that that as of April 20, 2022 I have created a Infobox of Sindhudesh, and this took me alot of time so I would appreciate that if you guys want to "Revert" the changes then kindly please don't remove Infobox since it took me alot of time and research.
From a Sindhi.
Jeay Sindh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NameIsShaheer (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox of the page 

message: Unemployed Indians have made this page so professionally that they have included every single thing, I mean when are you guys gonna make a Nagaland, Manipur, and Chhtisgarh page? Indian occupied Jammu and Kashmir too! AyiMVengeance (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indians 

message: @Starkex
Since you chose not to open a discussion here and proceeded to further edit war without good reason, I'm opening a discussion here to reach consensus. 
All of my edits were well explained and based on ensuring the article uses neutral language. Your assumptions of "envy" edits are far from the truth. On the contrary, it seems you have a strong conflict of interest with regards to this topic since you claim to be closely related to it. Subjects closely related to the article are strongly discouraged from unmonitored editing and cannot be considered neutral. See: WP:COI 
Second, please point out which of my edits you have a problem with here, since all of my edit summaries had explanations for why the content is questionable or deserving to be removed because they were unsourced. Don't know why you decided to revert everything with an absurd explanation of the content you edited being there for "long amounts of time". 
I will restore my edits after a consensus is reached and if you provide solid policy based arguments for the specific edits you have a problem with, I'll respectfully restore your version.
Please avoid edit warring and keep in mind the 3 revert rule, after which this discussion will have to be taken to relevant discussion boards. Uzek (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent edit warring 

message: User:DaxServer Doug Weller talk 08:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @Doug Weller — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 07:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits made by a CU confirmed sock