This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 12 January 2025 by reviewer EmeraldRange (talk · contribs). Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hello,

I would like to suggest removing or avoiding the addition of insurgency-related information to the article on the Wesean Student Federation (WSF). Unless there is a reliable source that directly connects the organization to insurgency, this information should instead be placed on a more relevant page, such as "Insurgency in Northeast India."

Per Wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:UNDUE (undue weight), adding such information risks giving disproportionate emphasis to unrelated or tangential topics, which may misrepresent the purpose and activities of WSF. Additionally, WP:COATRACK advises against using an article as a platform to discuss broader topics that are only loosely connected to the subject.

The article should focus on WSF’s documented goals and initiatives (human rights advocacy, cultural education, etc.) unless there is reliable, secondary evidence directly linking the organization to insurgency. Including unrelated insurgency information risks confusing readers and detracts from the neutrality and accuracy of the article (as per WP:NPOV).

Thank you for considering this suggestion. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling northeast India as "western Southeast Asia" is an extreme POV. India has never been said to be part of Southeast Asia, and no part of it has been said to be part of it either. This whole propaganda was the brainchild of UNLF, whose chief R. K. Meghan, tried to find various non-Indian labels in order to link up with other northeast militant groups. You have been claiming that there is something called "Wesea" and some people called "Weseans". Well, if you search for those terms, these are the only references that show up.

It may be that the leaders of WSF were ignorant of this history, or maybe they are aware and chose this term on purpose. But it is clear that it is an artificial term, a misleading term, and it is their job to explain it.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your engagement with this topic. However, I must respectfully disagree with several points you've raised

Terminology and Intentions: As editors, it's imperative that we avoid attributing intentions or motivations without verifiable evidence. Assuming that the term "Wesea" is part of a specific propaganda effort without reliable sources to substantiate this claim constitutes original research, which is contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines. Per Wikipedia's policy onverifiability, all content must be attributable to reliable, published sources.

Geographical Classification of Northeast India: The assertion that Northeast India has never been considered part of Southeast Asia is not entirely accurate. Scholarly works have discussed the region's connections with Southeast Asia. For instance, James C. Scott's concept of "Zomia" includes parts of Northeast India within a broader Southeast Asian highland context. Scott describes Zomia as encompassing areas from the Central Highlands of Vietnam to Northeastern India, highlighting the region's historical and cultural ties beyond conventional national boundaries

Here in the following article you would also find Nagaland Mizoram being described as geographically a part of Southeast Asia

https://www.britannica.com/place/Southeast-Asia

and from my understanding here “Wesea” is not solely being referred to northeast india. It encompasses other regions outside india.Cultural and Historical

Connections: The cultural and historical ties between Northeast India and Southeast Asia have been explored in various academic studies. Research has indicated cultural affinities during prehistoric times, suggesting longstanding interactions between these regions. JSTOR

Use of the Term "Wesea": While the term "Wesea" may not be widely recognized, it's essential to approach such terminology with neutrality. The onus is on those introducing the term to provide reliable sources that explain its origin, usage, and relevance. Conversely, dismissing it as artificial or misleading without evidence also breaches Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy.

it's crucial that our contributions adhere strictly to Wikipedia's core content policies: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. Any claims or terminology introduced should be backed by reliable sources to maintain the encyclopedia's credibility and objectivity.

thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it’s not about the term wesea but the article is about the organisation itself. By beating around the bush on this term, you are deviating from the point of the article

WP:Coatrack would apply in this case. If you want to discuss wesea as a terminology, I would suggest making a new Wikipedia page or add it under Insurgency in Northeast India Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to put WP:UNDUE weight. Having more of the article dedicated to the UNLF is also a form of "extreme POV". A passing mention is definitely needed for historical context, but not a list of all the armed groups that have ever used the term in an article about a different organisation. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Scott's "Zomia" is about a politico-cultural phenomenon of the "non-state people" that he finds inhabiting the hill ranges. If he looked inside India, he would have found the same pheonomenon there too. There is nothing "southeast Asian" about non-state people in the hill regions. And, Zomia wouldn't cover the Assam valley!

The Encyclopedia Britannica article is describing the hill ranges that arise from the collision between the Indian plate and Eurasian plate. No doubt, the entre Patkai-Arakan Yomas are part of these ranges.So are Himalayas, and part of the Hindukush mountains. There is no way you can put all of them into "Southeast Asia".

"Wesea" is not a standard term. If that is part of the name of this organisation, we are obliged to explain its etymology. I can condense it a bit, but I can't brush it under the carpet. If this etymology is not correct, it is your job and WSF's job to tell us where else this term came from.

Finally, I don't appreciate your accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I have never said a word about this organisation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new grouping is dominated by militant organisations from Manipur, which refer to the northeastern region as “West South East Asia”.^[1]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again Respectfully this article isn’t about the term wesea. There should not even be a discussion on what Wesea is and what it means. I’m not accusing you of anything and I have not mentioned We:IDontlikeit anywhere

If you feel it’s something you can talk about and expand on I suggest creating a separate page on “Wesea”. or discuss this in a page on insurgency in northeast india

Your current edits reeks of WP:COATRACK. Mentioning insurgency deviates from the topic and doesn’t add substance. It simply works by confusing the reader and promotes bias against the organisation. WP:NPOV

There is no point discussing the etymology here unless it is directly related to the organisation which is the subject of the article. You can talk about insurgency after you find valid and reliable sources establishing any connections this organization might have with insurgent groups in the region.

thanks Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that "Wesea" should not be discussed here. This is a federation of "Wesean students". Well, who are "Wesean students"? Why are they called "Wesean students"? Who invented that label? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source where the organisation has given an explanation or has talked about it. Again after reviewing the sources it can easily be established that “Weseans” here doesn’t necessarily **only** include north-east Indians. There are sources that talks about the organisation’s involvement in “Kachin state” of Myanmar and Chittagong of Bangladesh. Just because other organisations that happens to be insurgents use the word does not mean we mention them in a wiki article about a completely unrelated organisation .

again if you are interested in this topic please go ahead and create a separate page on the term Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in what the organisation says. Wikipedia articles are based neutral WP:THIRDPARTY source. You are trying to turn this page into a WP:FANSITE, filled up with your own WP:OR. You need to stop this! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again accusations. Kindly provide evidence of Wikipedia:OR

i haven’t accused you of anything without evidence. I would suggest editors to remain professional. Again in no form am I interested in being a fan of any organization. You are free to add specific information that’s shows the organization links as you point out provided it’s sourced properly. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we refrain from discussing the etymology of the term "Wesean" in the context of the Wesean Student Federation (WSF) article. Including such a discussion would introduce significant WP:UNDUE weight, potentially distracting readers from the main focus of the article, which is the organization and its activities. Adding this content might also fall under WP:COATRACK by using the article as a vehicle for unrelated linguistic discussions.

Unless reliable and verifiable secondary sources explicitly analyze the use of the term "Wesean" in connection with the organization or provide a third-party examination of why the term is being used, it is inappropriate to include this information. Simply noting that the WSF uses the term does not justify a deep dive into the term's etymology or its use in other contexts.

Additionally, this risks constituting WP:ORIGINAL research, as no source has directly linked the term's etymology to the organization. Wikipedia is not the platform to synthesize or speculate about the significance of a term without robust, third-party sources backing such claims.

To maintain the article's neutrality and relevance, we should focus solely on well-documented and sourced information directly about the WSF, leaving out unrelated or tangential discussions. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I support the removal of the "Etymology" section as it detracts from the main focus of the article, which is the Wesean Student Federation (WSF). Including details about insurgency-related terminology and associations risks violating Wikipedia's content policies, particularly WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, as it disproportionately emphasizes loosely connected topics. The term "Wesea" and its historical usage by insurgent groups should be addressed in a separate article or within a more relevant context, such as "Insurgency in Northeast India." This ensures the neutrality and credibility of the article, aligning with Wikipedia's guidelines on WP:NPOV and WP:V. The primary focus of the WSF article should remain on the organization’s documented goals, such as human rights advocacy and cultural education, unless reliable sources directly link it to insurgent activities. Adding unrelated information confuses readers and shifts attention away from the organization's mission and initiatives. Chegouahora (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an article dedicated to it since there are clearly sources and a lot of opinions about the phrase, maybe Wesea. Surprised that doesn't exist. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that it shouldn't be completely removed, maybe just keep what "Wesea" simply stands for and get rid of all the other unnecessary info which should rather be in other Wesea pages? Cheolssip (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user has also participated in the Afd discussion and has no contributions to Wikipedia beside this talk Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of a section connecting the Wesean Student Federation (WSF) with militant groups raises serious concerns about neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s content guidelines. Such claims require strong, reliable third-party sources. Without these, the section risks spreading misinformation and harming the reputation of the organization, which could even open Wikipedia to potential defamation issues.

Furthermore, the Etymology section appears overly detailed relative to the overall length of the article and deviates from the standard structure of similar organizational pages. No other organization pages on Wikipedia include an etymology section unless the name’s origin use is talked about by valid third party sources in context of the organisation that the page is about. In this case, the section seems speculative, using unrelated contexts to draw questionable connections.

ZoUnified (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is not reliable about these sources?

• Banerjee, Amrita (2022), Women Security & Governance, Interdisciplinary Institute of Human Security & Governance, p. 111, ISBN 9788195515950
• Chakravarti, Sudeep (2022), The Eastern Gate: War and Peace in Nagaland, Manipur and India's Far East, Simon and Schuster, pp. 471–473, ISBN 9789392099267
• Rezaul H. Laskar (24 April 2015), "Nine miltant groups of NE form united front with Chinese blessings", Hindustan Times, archived from the original on 26 April 2015
• Prabin Kalita, UNLFW: The new name for terror in NE, The Times of India, 5 June 2015. ProQuest 1686118791

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources mention the student organisation. Other pages in the Banerjee book mention students but not in this context. The issue is not reliability- see: WP:NPOV not WP:RS. Not all reliable information needs to go on every page. For example, even though there are many reliable sources about Angela Merkel's economic policies, they likely don't belong on this page about the Wesean Student Federation.

I would agree with the various other users that have brought this up that this is WP:UNDUE weight nearing WP:OR- specifically WP:SYNTH through implications that reliable sources have not made about the Wesean Student Federation specifically. The WP:CONSENSUS seems to be that the paragraph in question down accordingly to mention the relevant context of Wesea as used by other groups to simply:

The term "Western Southeast Asia" (Wesea, for short) is a term used by the secessionist insurgent groups of Manipur to refer to northeast India.

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 21:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an organisation has a peculiar name, explaining that name is entirely WP:DUE. None of you have explained why you claim it is UNDUE. You are just blindly throwing around some policy names to shoot down stuff you don't like, without any understanding of what those policies mean.

"Wesean" is not a type of student. So students are entirely irrelevant to the discussion. It is the name given to the region, and the sources are crystal clear about who gave that name to the region. You don't like it. Tough!

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an organisation has a peculiar name, explaining that name is entirely WP:DUE.

Indeed, that's why I believe that there should be a sentence explaining it as suggested.

Students are relevant because the article is about a student federation. I think, as I suggested elsewhere on this page, the content there is better suited for a dedicated Wesea article. It is undue due to WP:SYNTH, as none of the sources are actually about the subject of this article. Please do not accuse me of not knowing policies while using arguments that do not allign with the policy or the argument at hand. This page is not about "Weseans", and you are welcome to make that article if you wish. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wesea doesn't merit an article. Even if it does, that is entirely irrelevant to the present discussion.

How much explanation should be given for the term depends on how much there is to say. It cannot be prejudged. Gvien the extreme amount of POV that is associated with this term, which you people do not want to acknowledge or admit, the background has to be given. I am afraid all your arguments are essentially WP:CENSORing arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a notice to involved editors that I am notifying as per policy regarding a third opinion being sought before entering a lengthy RfC process. Quotes below taken from the Talk above with other arguments being summarised.

FOR removal: The inclusion and focus of half the article on the term Wesean is WP:UNDUE weight, and amounts to WP:SYNTH-type original research through implications. Specifically discussing and naming several separatist groups whose only relation to the subject is that they both use the term Wesean is an attempt to push a WP:POV view. Adding that content is a form of WP:COATRACK. "Mentioning insurgency deviates from the topic and doesn’t add substance. It simply works by confusing the reader and promotes bias against the organisation." - @EmeraldRange @Flyingphoenixchips @ZoUnified @Cheolssip @Chegouahora

AGAINST removal: Sources being used to back it up are reliable. Whether sources discuss the student group or students at all is irrelevant because the term wesea is an "extreme POV" Removing the paragraph amounts to WP:CENSORship of the history of the term Wesea being used by the organisation. "you people" just don't like that fact and want to remove it. Additionally, talking about Wesean students in any context without talking about separatists makes this a WP:FANSITE and is by itself WP:OR -@Kautilya3

If you believe my summaries are not representative of the above arguments, please feel free to elaborate below. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I scratched out the last sentence. I have never made any attempt to link the organisation with the separatists. I am only linking the term "Wesea" with separatists. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I did misread the initial conversation: I should've said " Additionally, only utilising sources on what the organisation would turn this into a WP:FANSITE and is by itself WP:OR" based in this quote from you

I am not interested in what the organisation says. Wikipedia articles are based neutral WP:THIRDPARTY source. You are trying to turn this page into a WP:FANSITE, filled up with your own WP:OR. You need to stop this!

EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 12:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Relying solely on the statements made by the organisation and presenting them as statements of fact would turn it into a WP:FANSITE and involves WP:OR. Statements made by the organisation must be attributed to the organisation and their DUE WEIGHT needs to be decided by WP:CONSENSUS. After I made those criticisms, the other editor did tone down some of the statements. I might need to revisit it again sometime, but those issues are extraneous to the present discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your summaries! My argument was basically that the WP:COATRACK as the current information, gets away from its nominal subject which is the organization, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. Not talking about separatists doesn't make the article a fansite because the focus remains on the student group and its activities, adhering to the topic's scope. However if you find sources, that links this particular organisation with insurgents, then for sure and definitely must include this information, protecting Wikipedia's integrity. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

T ZoUnified (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging. Well Kautilya3 had responded to me previously so I'm responding here. None of thr sources he/she listed mention about the organisation, that is subject of this article. Sure I agree you can talk about the etymology if you can find a third party, valid and reliable source that discusses the term in detail with respect to the organisation. Trying to find sources that list Wesea and not even mention the organisation ZoUnified (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to find sources that just list wesea and not even mention the organisation once is not reliable and is definitely original research. This article is not about insurgency, separatism, the term wesea or others- unless you can provide a reliable source that links this organisation in question with these. Also from reading the sources this article shouldn’t even have different sections- and must merely have a few paragraphs (1-2 max). Newspaper sources that just repeats what the organization said is not a third party source. Even this or mention about the term is unnecessary in my opinion as there are no sources cited that explicitly talks about the term in reference to the organisation that is subject of this article. Plus, many of the sources are newspaper sources quotes the organisation and doesn’t constitute third party sources. Also in all due respect, there are many organisations with peculiar names but no one talks about their etymology unless there is a source that explicitly it in context of the said organisation. In context is critical here. Alongside this- I again reiterate this wiki article must be cut short a lot. We don’t even need an about section. Condense it- sources doesn’t warrant this length. this page is not about wesea. Create a separate page for the term, if the user is very interested in linking the term with insurgents. It’s very much apparent that the current content is of extreme POV purposely trying to create an illusion that the “organisation is involved in separatism but denies it.” There are again multiple with peculiar names and it does not warrant an explanation. ZoUnified (talk) 17:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Procedural decline. There are already more than two involved editors. 3O is generally intended for disputes where only two editors are currently discussing the matter. If further discussion fails to resolve the dispute, you are welcome to consider other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I've instead submitted a dispute noticeboard request at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wesean Student Federation EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I will have to decline DRN because I will be travelling for the next three weeks. I recommend WP:RFC instead. But it can only be filed after DRN case is closed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's fine. There's no rush as the AfD has to resolve before DRN can continue. Though if you'd rather us do RFC while you're away, we can close the DRN if you inform the DRN volunteer on the DRN page. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I wanted to bring up an important pointer. Initially I was convinced that the topic of the wiki page does not meet notability guidelines of Wikipedia as most of the newspaper articles are simply repeats of what the organisation has said. Further digging it’s evident from the other sources that this organisation is relatively small and recently established. As a result this should be treated as a WP:BLP since it constitute a small group. Additionally there seems to be marginal interest apart from extreme POV based additions of etymology trying to link the organisation itself with separatist. Although it might be denied that this is not a target against the organisation itself, addition of such contents must be addressed with caution as it clearly presents the article in a biased and negative tone from the start. To quote Wikipedia rules: “A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group. When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality source”. So I propose removal of etymology until a Concensus is reached. Also I again reiterate that the current length of the article is not supported by the number of sources cited. It should be cut down to 1-2 paragraphs. This wiki at the moment is definitely WP:TOOSOON and must be condensed at the moment ZoUnified (talk) 09:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]