Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 3

Page reports
KakaDesi named user is creating a constant Indian vandalism on the page of a Sikh man. Administrator is requested to block this id. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.249.226 (talk) 09:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By locking this page, Wikipedia can protect this page from further vandalism and defamation. The version present now is a more towards neutrality. Vickle1777 (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dead or not dead
The article in its current form is missing the details about the death, and the date of death except in the info box. These archives:
 * Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 2
 * Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 1

show that there was a discussion about the death. The older versions of the article from 2012-08-27T10:33:30, 2012-07-12T15:54:39, and 2010-06-08T22:36:09 contain details about the death and some additional text which could have been potentially lost due to the massive editing or vandalism or both. Could this be fixed by anyone familiar with the subject matter of this article? Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed about the details of death needing attention. I added a death date and place to the infobox based on the death date provided in the article (looks like that had disappeared since Kazkaskazkasako's note. I did not list cause of death; I am not an expert on the subject by any stretch though so have stopped there. Surely it is not controversial that he is dead; there seem to be plenty of references to it online but in my very superficial peek they don't describe cause.ifny (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nationality and "Militant Leader"
I think that the nationality should be left as "Indian" (as Sikhism is listed as the religion - which it is rather than being a nation). I have removed the comment about him being a militant leader as I believe that this is not clearly and reliability shown through referneces in the article. Please do not edit the article until this has been sorted out. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Callnecc: There is a problem with your assertion. Sikh are distinct religious community and political nation. Indians have a problem with it. There constitution doesn't even recognize the independence of Sikh religion. Therefore, they can never accomodate a distinct nation within the union of India. Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale himself said, "he is a Sikh" and Sikhs are a distinct nation. Therefore, it is almost blasphemous to put Indian against his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.249.226 (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, let me make this point very clearly, continuing to edit war on an article after protect has expired and there is a discussion on the talk page is very bad form and not at all conducive to trying to work this out.
 * If that's the case then I would advocate leaving the parameter blank and putting "Indian" in a "citizenship" parameter. Reason is that, nationality is the country (nation) to which you belong and as there is no "Sikh" nation (that is, if you look at a world map it isn't there) it shouldn't be included as such. Instead Sikh is regarded as a religion, so is listed in that parameter. If it would be "blasphemous" to include Indian as his nationality (and if you're going to say something like that it would be helpful if you had reliable source to verify it) then it would be better to leave it blank. If we have Indian as his citizenship (if that is the case) then we avoid the nationality issue. How does that sound? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Callnecc: Your proposal of putting Indian as citizenship is excellent and should not invite any debate. But the difference between nation, State/country'' must be cleared. And nationality means participating member of a nation. Sikhs as such don't have a State but that doesn't mean they are not a nation. Let it be re-iterated here, they are a religious community and a political nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.196.249.226 (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sikh is a religion,and this terrorist's nationality was Indian.Ovsek (talk) 06:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Khalsa or Brar
article has inconsistency about his birth surname--Vigyani (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity
" The evidence shows that the Sikhs satisfy these tests. They are more than a religious sect, they are almost a race and almost a nation. As a race, the Sikhs share a common colour, and a common physique based on common ancestors from that part of the Punjab which is centred on Amritsar. They fail to qualify as a separate race because in racial origin prior to the inception of Sikhism they cannot be distinguished from other inhabitants of the Punjab. As a nation the Sikhs defeated the Moghuls, and established a kingdom in the Punjab which they lost as a result of the first and second Sikh wars they fail to qualify as a separate nation or as a separate nationality because their kingdom never achieved a sufficient degree of recognition or permanence. The Sikhs qualify as a group defined by ethnic origins because they consitute a separate and distinct community derived from the racial characteristics I have mentioned." Please see these lines in the last paragraph.

According to the House of Lords, though Sikhs qualify the conditions for Race, Nation and Ehtnicity, yet due to circumstances, they can't be called a race or nation/nationality. And only Ethnicity. I hope this shall settle the issue. All accounts taken (talk)
 * Legal rulings should not be used as sources on Wikipedia, and particularly so when there are jurisdictional issues (eg: the House of Lords has no jurisdiction in India). What you need is a reliable secondary source. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sitush's point that the Lords' ruling is looking at a definition within British law and not a general definition. Under Wikipedia's taxonomy of ethnic groups, Punjabi people is an ethnic group; Sikhs represent a religious demographic within that group but are not a separate group. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * User:All accounts taken has now removed the ethnicity from the infobox. I endorse this edit and agree with the reasoning: the ethnicity listed would generalize him in a way that isn't necessarily accurate. The reader is better served by having no ethnicity listed in the infobox; they can quickly skim the introduction and first paragraph of early life to see that he was from Punjab and was heavily involved in Sikhism and related political causes. —C.Fred (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sikhs are recognised as an ethnic group as per the Mandala Vs Lee Dowell case, but this only applies in the UK. The Indian Goverment does not recognise Sikhs as a seperate ethnic group. Since he was born in India I don't think you can make his Nationality Sikh. Thanks S H 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Disputed neutrality
The article does not give enough information on his activities as an insurgent. He played a bigger role in the insurgency than what is depicted in the article.203.191.35.22 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There was no insurgancy against goverment rather an insurgency from Indian National Congress towards minority groups.
 * A three year old can tell you that "The damdami taksal is a 300 year old political party for the benifit of all people,
 * the congress is a british made party for English speaking Hindi people" 142.232.140.128 (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

this article is not neutral.rather then presenting a neutral POV it is just glorifing him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhirassharma (talk • contribs) 07:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate why specifically you believe it to be not neutral ie any exaggerated or untrue items or what you feel is missing. Jujhar.pannu (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be a section for criticism of Bhindranwale. Most of the text in this article is written in a flattering way about him. Even facts that he was a terrorist who terrorized people in and around the temple, brought arms and shed blood inside the temple and then turn it into a fortified fort to fight the army, are depicted in a way that none of that was his fault and he was a righteous. The favorable sentiments sikh community has for him are testament of him being a great leader and orator but the article is not written in a balanced manner. Please do research on criticisms and controversies and add references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.136.169 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Indira Gandhi and Bhindranwale
The politics of the Congress (I) was aimed at weakening the Akalis. Zail Singh was the Chief Minister of Punjab during 1972-77. Unlike the previous chief ministers, he came from Ramgaria (artisan) caste and not the majority Jat caste. In order to widen his power base and weaken the Akalis, he encouraged the activities of Bhindranwale and his ultra-orthodox intolerant followers. Akali-Janata coalition was in power during 1978-1980. In order to create a rift in the Akali Dal, a new faction called Dal Khalsa led by Bhindranwale was started with blessings of Zail Singh, Indira Gandhi and Sanjay Gandhi on April 13, 1978. In the year following, some policemen in Punjab went on strike and were dismissed. During the elections of 1980, Zail Singh promised to take them back if Congres (I) returned to power that promise was fulfilled. We can imagine what kind of police force Punjab had.

With his masters Zail Singh (then Union Home Minister) and Indira Gandhi firmly back in power, Bhindranwale openly attacked his opponents – the Nirankaris. Their leader Baba Gurubachan Singh and his aide were shot dead in Delhi on 25th April 1980. The killer, carpenter Ranjit Singh, escaped. All the 20 persons against whom warrants were issued, either belonged to the Jatha of Bhindranwale or were his relatives or associates and were hiding under his protection. Organised political murders were now appearing on the scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ponraam (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Terrorist
In all sense of the word this man was a terrorist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.196.186.217 (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent revert
I tried to add an edit summary, but looks like it did not work. I was unsure why the infobox was suddenly changed to "criminal" without explanation or edit summary. --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.sikh-history.com/sikhhist/personalities/bhindranwale.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529153236/http://sikhcoalition.org/SantJarnailSingh.pdf to http://sikhcoalition.org/SantJarnailSingh.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070221230851/http://www.flonnet.com/fl1813/18130360.htm to http://www.flonnet.com/fl1813/18130360.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100402094923/http://www.bhindranwale.net/sikhismbooks/the-gallant-defender.html to http://www.bhindranwale.net/sikhismbooks/the-gallant-defender.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Damdami Taksal Students
It's critical to understand Sant Bhindranwale's motivations and grievances from his own perspective. As such, I've added his stated grievances that developed early on following an incident at Damdami Taksal. This is a quote taken directly from his speech as well as a quote from a Giani who was interviewed by Doctor Cynthia Mahmood, a pHD in an Anthropology. I have not found evidence that his allegations were disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Narains Murder
Added context around Narain's murder and an explanation of why Sant Bhindranwale was accused. Sources cited include perspectives from Mark Tully as well as newspapers.

Chandon Kalon
To understand Sant Bhindranwale's perspective, the incident at Chandon Kalon is significant to him as a Sikh preacher and is an issue he raised frequently during his public addreses considering that copies of the Guru Granth Sahib were reported to have been set on fire by the police. To avoid bias, an account from Mark Tully is also included which outlines the police perspective.

Mehta Chowk Incident
The incident at Mehta Chowk was also important in shaping Sant Bhindranwale's perspective. Like the incident at Chandon Kalon, there are conflicting views of the events that took place. A perspective from both Sant Bhindranwale as well as Mark Tully (which provides the perspective of authorities) was included.

Dissolution of Due Process
Cited several sources that align on the perspective that the Police at the time were extra-judicially executing alleged criminals. Perspectives from various sources including Mark Tully, SGPC, Sant Bhindranwale's speeches, and an interview with a Hindu priest were included for balance. This is critical in understanding Sant Bhindranwale's transition from preacher to armed militant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 21:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Fortification of the Akal Thakt
A tremendous amount of detail was missing that spoke to the events leading up to the decision to fortify the Akal Thakt, as well as the perspectives of both Indian authorities and supports of Sant Bhindranwale held with regard to the justification of both the attack and defense of the complex. The sources cited include Mark Tully, various newspapers and other authors.

Concerning the disputes over military use, it is important to note that there has been justification provided by both critics, supporters, and neutral parties concerning Jarnail Singh's decision to fortify the complex. These perspectives have been stated, if there are additional perspectives they are welcome to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 22:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversy
Both Sant Bhindranwale's alleged involvement in Hindu-Sikh communalism and his views on Khalistan have conflicting views. The sources cited do not support the statement that Sant Bhindranwale started the Khalistan movement, so this statement needs to be removed. Perspectives from Mark Tully, Ranbir Singh on Bhindranwale's character have been added to provide both perspectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Censor of content by IP and new users
The article content has recently been removed in an attempt to censor. Kindly read the Wikipedia policy of WP:CENSOR. The article as it stands as of now is reliably sourced to strong and reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. If you do not have Crenshaw Martha book, then you can buy or check in a library. -- D Big X ray  09:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * New users with 0 edits and "possibly" unaware of the policies please discuss your edits here on talk page first. -- D Big X ray  08:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Discussion on sourced content in the lead
Hello It seems you have some problem with this content and you have removed it. The article is sourced to neutral third party and following the WP:NPOV let me know your thoughts on why exactly do you think it needs to be removed. Before making any reply you should also go and read that NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content, regards -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:09, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi ! The neutral point of view policy states: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

As you know, the topic we are both editing can be highly polarizing. However, popular perspectives cannot be completely removed from the page. As such, I am happy to work with you to ensure that we arrive at balanced, neutral content. It may take weeks as I am not a full time editor, but I'm confident we'll get there. Thank you. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * Please read NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. While working with controversial topics, be very careful to choose neutral authors as sources, especially for controversial claims. Your addition of POV sources has been reverted as we would need better sources (Neutral third party) for such claims.
 * According to Khushwant Singh Joyce Pettigrew is an admirer of Bhindranwale and Sikh militancy Hence we cannot accept outragious and scandalous claims from this author into the article.
 * Similarly do not use WP:PRIMARY sources like Pannu for controversial claims. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead section
According to MOS:LEAD the notability of the article should be established in the first few sentences. Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale is notable because of Operation Bluestar, not because of his campaigns against liquor and drugs. Operation Bluestar should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. Ankit2 (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. Nirankari murders, and Bluestar are the 2 main reasons of his notability. -- D Big X ray  19:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The content in this lead section does not reflect a number of popular views and severely lacks balance. It is far too simplistic, especially the statement that reads "He symbolized the revivalist, extremist and terrorist movement in the 1980s in Punjab". The SGPC, the governing body of all gurdwaras in Panjab (considered the political center for Sikhs world wide) published its' perspective in its' own White Paper in 1996. Their view that Sant Jarnail Singh's charisma and ability to promote values consistent with the teachings of Sikhism (pg. 97-98) are corroborated by anthropologists Cynthia Mahmood and Joyce Pettigrew
 * "By all accounts Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was a charismatic personality....soon his speeches were making the rounds of Punjabi villages on cassettte tapes, radically increasing the range of his influence." -Fighting for faith and nation p.77
 * Sant Bhindranwale, who became a martyr in the attack on Darbar Sahib, had wished religious values to be placed at the centre of life in a rapidly changing society. Yet in saying so I must remark that in the democratic societies of the West, these values would not be described termed as religious but rather would be described as civil libertarian and socialist." - The Sikhs of Punjab, p.58
 * I should note that "Civil libertarianism" is defined as: "a strain of political thought that supports civil liberties, or which emphasizes the supremacy of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority (such as a state, a corporation, social norms imposed through peer pressure and so on"). This statement by Joyce Pettigrew is a testament to the values of freedom and equality that underscore the Sikh faith, a faith that declared Bhindranwale a Saint.
 * "how eternily grateful were many mothers to the Sant for stopping the addiction of their sons and husbands to alcohol and drugs, usually opium, thereby saving their families.." The Sikhs of Punjab, p.58
 * I should also note that Anthropology is literally the science that studies human behavior and society. Very few members of the Indian press would come close to the qualifications held by these two authors. There are also statements from Indian politicians and Hindu priests that speak to the character of Jarnail Singh. In addition, the Golden Temple (the most revered and holy site for Sikhs) has erected a massive sign in three languages regards him as an "inspiration" and "great Sikh warrior". These very prominent and highly credible views are widely held and simply cannot be discounted if Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is to be respected by this page. In order to reflect balance, the mainstream perspective of Sikhs is required as they are the only other party involved in this conflict.  To repeatedly remove this perspective from this page (as some editors who continue to police this page have done) is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.  I look forward to working with everyone that is concerned with the integrity of this page in good faith and with respect for each other's contributions, as is required by Wikipedia policy.--Southasianresearcher (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * For balance, there are three key angles to address on this topic provided that both are well supported views 1) Indian nationalist (media/state) perspective (2) The mainstream Sikh perspective (3) a corroborative perspective between both parties (where they agree).  There has been quite a bit of editing and reverting of contributions with claims of 'propaganda youtube videos'.  However, in some cases the videos in question were interviews with highly credible sources (e.g., former Army Commander and Chief of Staff Srinivas Kumar Sinha) and yet were eliminated and replaced by links to editorialized articles/videos by Indian news agencies. Agencies that deserve added scrutiny given decades of extreme censorship (India ranked 138th in the World Press Freedom Index ) and propaganda scandals (i.e., Cobrapost string ).  While we need to incorporate the views of our fellow editors from India, these concerns make it even more critical to ensure minority views are not suppressed or intimidated (i.e., the Sikh perspective in this case).--Tarakalak (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to both of you below.
 * WIKIPEDIA is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of views and opinions. Only content supported WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:RS can be added in the articles.
 * The quote in the LEAD is reliably sourced from a neutral third party RS Crenshaw, Martha. It is a neither simplistic nor incorrect. The statement is backed up by multiple third party sources.
 * he is called martyr is already mentioned in the LEAD.
 * Pettigrew and Mahmood are partial and biased (towards the Sikh militants) sources this is established in the academia.e.g. Dusenbery Even the quotes that you produced above from the book shows that it is indeed a piece of WP:PUFFERY. Using content from such PUFFERY and clearly biased sources is not allowed since it violates the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia. This is strictly followed in case of controversial articles. I have already mentioned this in the section below about these sources. Kindly do not quote these 2 for controversial article or controversial claims.
 * Youtube interviews are not reliable sources but WP:PRIMARY. For controverial articles, PRIMARY sources are not used.
 * Talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM to discuss the general topic subject or politics. only talk about specific content in the article and improving it. Any comment against the policy of WP:NOTFORUM will be ignored.
 * Wikipedia polices on use of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:MEATPUPPETRY are rather strict and defaulting editors are immediately blocked. So please follow these policies.
 * I have linked each of the policy above so that you can familiarize yourself with it. Once you read these pages and have further comments do let me know about it. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please see my reply to your points above in order
 * We are in agreement on the first point. I believe my contributions met this criteria. Please note the following from: WP:MAINSTREAM "Wikipedia is neutral, which means it does not take sides in any dispute. If the preponderance of the best sources indicate that a subject has many equally valid sides, then Wikipedia gives equal space to the description of all sides." This speaks to my point that it is appropriate to include perspectives from credible institutions, scholars, and journalists even if they oppose perspectives originating from Indian government and media sources.
 * Perhaps the statement is correct according to the source you cited, but that was not the concern I put forward (you and I are also not qualified to make such judgements). The point I am making is that there are a number of other reputable sources that contradict this view and it is appropriate to allow those views to be represented on this page.
 * The 'martyr' statement you are referring to is balanced in that it provides the view of the Akal Thakt as well as the Indian media. I accept that statement and have not disputed it.
 * I was not suggesting that the quotes from Joyce Pettigrew or Cynthia Mahmood be contributed as is. The point I made was that there are qualified, credible sources that have put forward a perspective on Sant Bhindranwale's character that supports the mainstream perspective of major Sikh institutions and scholars. WP:PUFFERY refers to "unprovable proclamations", however, the author does put forward evidence.  Regardless, the use of labels such as 'terrorist' and 'extremist' represent a bias perspective and can be perceived to be a WP:LABEL. The statement should either be balanced or removed. My previous contributions, which were removed without consensus, moved all statements that would be considered contentious into the body of the article to keep the lead brief. I am showing good faith and being courteous by not reverting the changes (which were in violation of wikipedia policy) that removed my contributions.  You feel that Pettigrew (who was a fellow at Manchester University) and Mahmood (who's work on Sikh militancy earned her a tenure at the University of Maine) are partial or biased and you provided a source from an individual that agreed with your view. This does not amount to academic consensus, rather it undermines WP:RS/AC which states that "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."  Moreover, the views of both Anthropologists are in alignment with the mainstream view of credible Sikh (and non-Sikh institutions) and scholars. The fact that Dunesbury attacked both authors in the same article should raise concerns of his bias against mainstream Sikh perspectives. Again, you and I should not be applying judgement or censoring content based on our own opinions. It would be more appropriate to add both sources so that readers have access to impartial content.
 * [WP] states that: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I believe my contributions were aligned with this requirement as they were direct quotes put forward by interviewees and could have been easily verified.
 * Please clarify what your concern is with my comments on this talk page.
 * I appreciate your concern on puppetry given this is an online forum and we are strangers to one another. I'm sure you also appreciate that it is reasonable to expect that multiple people may disagree with your opinion.
 * I apologize if I removed your content and you felt that I was disrespecting your view. However, this page does not represent a neutral view and is littered with Contentious labels that must either be balanced (similar to the martyr statement you alluded to) or removed altogether. I do not wish to remove your contributions entirely, but to ensure balance and to restructure the content to eliminate unnecessary repetitive content. I'm happy to cooperate with you on this, however when you revert my changes without proper commentary I am finding it disruptive. I assume that you don't intend to be but would prefer if you responded with making edits of your own (in alignment with wiki policy and guidelines) rather than fully reverting the changes.
 * If you have further concerns, please post the details here.
 * -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * I am not going to get involved in this debate (at least not just yet). But I want to make a general point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias focus on presents "facts" or "knowledge". We are not obliged to represent anybody's "perspectives". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you are referring to WP:NPOV and will clarify a few points to help you both understand the nature of my concerns with respect to this article and the inappropriate reverting of my contributions (dating back to May of this year). I am concerned with the multiple editors that are policing this page and appear to be enforcing a common viewpoint while censoring an opposing, but credible/verifiable perspective.  Should this continue to escalate I would like to point you to Wikipedia's policy on WP:HOUNDING.  To your point, Wikipedia is not obliged to represent anybody's 'personal' perspectives (for a multitude of valid reasons). In terms of neutrality, my intent is to promote the following elements of WP:NPOV with respect to this article:
 * "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." - in the case of edits made on this article, a number of verifiable points of view from credible sources have been removed and my intent is to re-incorporate them.  Note that I have not reverted contributions of other editors in protest, rather I am opening dialogue here on the talk page to explain the concerns. I ask for the same respect in return.
 * "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." - in the case of this article, editors promoting a particular bias have altogether removed and censored opposing views from this page rather than articulating clearly as is required by policy (WP:NPOV is a non-negotiable policy).--Southasianresearcher (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Southasianresearcher Please WP:AGF and follow WP:CIVIL, No one is disrespecting you. Edits are removed for a number of reasons. and you are supposed to follow WP:BRD Instead of making a general argument and accusations why dont you make a subsection below and start a discussion of the exact specific content that you would like to add, (along with neutral third party source) once we agree on a WP:CONSENSUS You can proceed to add it in the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Now that it appears that we've established each other's good faith, I hope we can continue editing this page cooperatively and ensuring that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are followed. Please note that I may not edit on a daily basis, and at times i will take lengthy breaks. Regardless, I'll stick to the approach we've agreed to here.--Southasianresearcher (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

hello, I am going to copy your above comments and make subsections, it is easier to reply that way. and please remember to sign at the end of your comment by adding ~ -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead statement

 * WIKIPEDIA is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of views and opinions. Only content supported WP:MAINSTREAM and WP:RS can be added in the articles.
 * The quote in the LEAD is reliably sourced from a neutral third party RS Crenshaw, Martha. It is a neither simplistic nor incorrect. The statement is backed up by multiple third party sources. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * We are in agreement on the first point. I believe my contributions met this criteria. Please note the following from: WP:MAINSTREAM "Wikipedia is neutral, which means it does not take sides in any dispute. If the preponderance of the best sources indicate that a subject has many equally valid sides, then Wikipedia gives equal space to the description of all sides." This speaks to my point that it is appropriate to include perspectives from credible institutions, scholars, and journalists even if they oppose perspectives originating from Indian government and media sources.
 * Perhaps the statement is correct according to the source you cited, but that was not the concern I put forward (you and I are also not qualified to make such judgements). The point I am making is that there are a number of other reputable sources that contradict this view and it is appropriate to allow those views to be represented on this page. :: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * per WP:MAINSTREAM kindly use reliable neutral and unbiased third party WP:RS sources. No, Using Indian government sources for controversial claims will not be neutral, hence gov. sources are not used. Kindly don't claim this falsely that govt sources have been used which has made it biased. When clearly this is not the case-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please understand that I don't mean this in a hurtful or personal way, but it is a matter of fact that media censorship and government influence has had a heavy influence on domestic and foreign journalism on this subject (acknowledged by the Indian press itself as well as pro-Indian authors cited below). Once again, my concerns are with balancing the article and ensuring a neutral view. The Indian government White Paper is cited twice in this article, but I am not taking issue with that.  Perhaps the White Paper is a valid source to cite as the perspective put forward by representatives of the Indian government probably shouldn't be discounted if they are the opposing party on this subject.  Rather I would like you to understand why it is important to "strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another".  Please see below for a few excerpts from reliable, secondary sources that provide evidence of direct and indirect forms of government censorship and that help illustrate the issues with basing this article almost entirely on Indian news sources (note that I am not saying that ALL Indian media is bias and censored, rather trying to explain that in some cases it was and therefore should not be used as the ONLY source of secondary information on this subject).  I have pasted them here in full for convenience (so that you don't have to go out and purchase or find material):
 * "Only a handful of carefully selected Indian reporters, working for television, radio and the two major English- language news agencies, Press Trust of India and United News of India, have traveled to the temple on Government- organized trips with President Singh and Sports Minister Buta Singh. Some newspapers and news agencies practice a form of self-censorship in what is otherwise one of the freest presses in the world. One editor said that sometimes a reporter and his editors would drop a report based on an official source if the source demanded it, especially if the report was potentially embarrassing to the Government. 'A Denial Will Only Hurt Us'"
 * "The Government says there is no censorship in any part of India except Punjab. But a representative for The Associated Press here said today that technicians at the overseas communications service refused on June 2 to transmit two radio photographs of soldiers around the Golden Temple."
 * "Nevertheless the Indian government has consistently denied those allegations. The government even went so far as to bring criminal charges against the Associated Press correspondent for his reporting."
 * "The paper [Indian Express] went on to make some practical suggestions for preventing damage to what it had quaintly called ‘the hurt collective psyche’ of the Sikhs. The first was to allow free reporting on Punjab. Papers published in Punjab had been censored and those coming from other parts of India had been banned from the State."
 * "The member of the teams [on behalf of Citizens for Democracy], working in conditions of press censorship and official lawlessness, could hardly be expected to secure the official version [from India authorities] of the various events recorded by them.
 * Once again, to be very clear, I am not saying that ALL media is influenced by government censorship nor am I posting this as an attempt to demean or belittle the perspective that has been promoted by editors on this page. It is important context since several contributions based on sources aligned with WP:SOURCE have been reverted with claims of 'propaganda'.--Southasianresearcher (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Some Important points.
 * I am not here to promote any perspective. and I request that you strike off or delete this unfounded personal allegations against me. This corresponds to making WP:PA personal attacks.
 * Govt. white papers is only cited once to support the Govt. claim and they are clearly attributed to government white paper. and they are reported in the article as Govt statement. It is not stated in the article as fact. That is not for us to decide. If you are going to use Pettigrew or Mahmud to say that Bhindranwale was born at this place or he got married here, that probably is not a controversial claim and that can be sourced with multiple other reliable sources.  But biased sources cannot be used to make loaded, scandalous and controversial claims  That you had quoted in the top reply of yours.
 * I am well aware of the press censorship that was imposed during the operation Bluestar. but this article is not on Bluestar, the censorship was not throughout the life of Bhindranwale but only for a period of 4-5 days while the military operation was happening. using this 4 day censorship to claim that Indian media is not reliable overall is a "very exaggerated" statement to make. Anyway, I am not here to discuss the press censorship during Bluestar, so I will ignore any further comment on the "4 day censorship".-- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * For the sake of civility I've made the edits you've requested. Please also strike your comments that refer to my posts as 'silly statements' as they are not appropriate as per WP:CIV which states that the following must be avoided by editors: "belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgemental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap".  I don't believe I have shown that level of disrespect to your opinions and it is not warranted.  These concerns are very relevant today as they were 30 years ago but I agree with you that this is not the place to delve deeply into this subject. If you'd like, you can use my personal talk page to open up a discussion on this topic. Thank you.--Southasianresearcher (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

martyr
he is called martyr is already mentioned in the LEAD. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The 'martyr' statement you are referring to is balanced in that it provides the view of the Akal Thakt as well as the Indian media. I accept that statement and have not disputed it.:: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)
 * Good, so this discussion is closed between us. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Pettigrew and Mahmood

 * Please read NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. While working with controversial topics, be very careful to choose neutral authors as sources, especially for controversial claims.
 * According to Khushwant Singh Joyce Pettigrew is an admirer of Bhindranwale and Sikh militancy Hence we cannot accept outragious and scandalous claims from this author into the article.
 * Similarly do not use WP:PRIMARY sources like Pannu for controversial claims. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:54, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Pettigrew and Mahmood are partial and biased (towards the Sikh militants) sources this is established in the academia.e.g. Dusenbery Even the quotes that you produced above from the book shows that it is indeed a piece of WP:PUFFERY. Using content from such PUFFERY and clearly biased sources is not allowed since it violates the WP:NPOV policy of Wikipedia. This is strictly followed in case of controversial articles. I have already mentioned this in the section below about these sources. Kindly do not quote these 2 for controversial article or controversial claims. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I was not suggesting that the quotes from Joyce Pettigrew or Cynthia Mahmood be contributed as is. The point I made was that there are qualified, credible sources that have put forward a perspective on Sant Bhindranwale's character that supports the mainstream perspective of major Sikh institutions and scholars. WP:PUFFERY refers to "unprovable proclamations", however, the author does put forward evidence.  Regardless, the use of labels such as 'terrorist' and 'extremist' represent a bias perspective and can be perceived to be a WP:LABEL. The statement should either be balanced or removed. My previous contributions, which were removed without consensus, moved all statements that would be considered contentious into the body of the article to keep the lead brief. I am showing good faith and being courteous by not reverting the changes (which were in violation of wikipedia policy) that removed my contributions.  You feel that Pettigrew (who was a fellow at Manchester University) and Mahmood (who's work on Sikh militancy earned her a tenure at the University of Maine) are partial or biased and you provided a source from an individual that agreed with your view. This does not amount to academic consensus, rather it undermines WP:RS/AC which states that "any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors."  Moreover, the views of both Anthropologists are in alignment with the mainstream view of credible Sikh (and non-Sikh institutions) and scholars. The fact that Dunesbury attacked both authors in the same article should raise concerns of his bias against mainstream Sikh perspectives. Again, you and I should not be applying judgement or censoring content based on our own opinions. It would be more appropriate to add both sources so that readers have access to impartial content. :: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * I have clearly explained why Both Pettigrew and Mahmood are biased, and unfit for adding controversial claims in this article. In my support I have provided refs by a very Notable historian and journalist Khushwant Singh and an academic review published in a reliable journal both calling these 2 sources biased. I have done my part. On your part you have only argued (and attacked these neutral reviewers) without any support backing up your claims. This appears to me a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * To clarify, my understanding, based on my review of [WP:BALANCE], is that the following approach should be taken when reputable sources contradict each other:
 * "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint."
 * Neither Dusenbury or Kushwant Singh can be considered 'disinterested viewpoints' (note that you did not provide a reference for Kushwant Singh, rather you provided two references to Dusenbury's work). Regardless, there are also reputable contradictory sources on this topic, such as Dr. Ranbir Singh Sandhu who cited and endorsed Pettigrew's work..
 * The use of WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are inappropriate. However, my argument was that we cannot discount reputable, qualified viewpoints because some editors hold an opinion that one reputable source trumps another. I pointed out that the appropriate method for resolving conflicts between reputable sources is to "describe both points of view and work for balance" as is described in Wikipedia's policy on WP:BALANCE.--Southasianresearcher (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can see the link above, I am not sure why you cannot see Khushwant singh above, please refresh your page. Dusenbury is a noted anthropologist and his review is published in a reputed journal. I am sure You know very well about Khushwant Singh calling them "disinterested" and trashing their review to support the BIASED content that you are trying to add in the article is the actual definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:ILIKEIT. Anyway, rRepeating the same statement in different ways is not going to help. If we have to proceed, and make progress in this section you have to present reliable reviews of this source from a reputed journal. I have presented the evidence that this source cannot be added to this article due to issues related to BIASNESS and PUFFERY. If you are not willing to accept the definition of WP:PUFFERY then I cannot help you. I am sure you know that SGPC published many books but none of them can be considered reputed third party. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Youtube and Primary sources
Youtube interviews are not reliable sources but WP:PRIMARY. For controverial articles, PRIMARY sources are not used. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * [WP] states that: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I believe my contributions were aligned with this requirement as they were direct quotes put forward by interviewees and could have been easily verified. :: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * No they are not aligned. You are trying to use PRIMARY sources for controversial claims in the article. this is against the policy. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have read the policy link that you provided but I'm not clear on the violation. Can you please paste the content that speaks to "controversial claims" with respect to primary sources?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs) 12:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * see WP:YOUTUBE, WP:SPS, WP:SECONDARY, Secondary_source, Identifying and using independent sources, WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, WP:PRIMARYNEWS -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello again, DBigXray, I've gone through the links and here is what I've found (I've used bold to emphasize areas that stuck out to me):
 * Material based on primary sources can be valuable and appropriate additions to articles. However, primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source.
 * Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations and should not be linked, either in the article or in citations.
 * Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis.
 * "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.
 * Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources.
 * The goal is only that the person could compare the primary source with the material in the Wikipedia article, and agree that the primary source actually, directly says just what the article says it does. Examples....Providing an original illustration: Suppose that a Wikimedia contributor inserts a photograph or other media file to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a person, place, or other topic. Editors who do this routinely assert that the photograph depicts the subject of the article. The Wikimedia community assumes good faith that the illustration really depicts the thing.
 * I did not find any policy against using primary sources for controversial topics. With respect to videos and youtube, there appears to be areas of policy that permit and support their use (as I've noted above). Thank you for sending me the links, but would it be possible to just copy and paste the policy here and maybe explain your concern a bit? I have done this throughout my exchanges on this page for clarity and readability (i.e., so that you don't have to waste time to go fishing for content). I'll get back to some of your other comments in time. Thank you.--Southasianresearcher (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

NOT forum
Talk pages are WP:NOTFORUM to discuss the general topic subject or politics. only talk about specific content in the article and improving it. Any comment against the policy of WP:NOTFORUM will be ignored. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please clarify what your concern is with my comments on this talk page.  :: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * This particular comment was aimed at User:Tarakalak, as he was talking about general politics. I have no concern on your comments. I wanted to clarify that Let's be to the point in our discussion. I consider this subsection closed between 2 of us. If User:Tarakalak returns back he can reply here. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi DBigXray, There are two contentious sides of this subject and the present article heavily promotes one side over the other. Sources themselves may be subject to bias, including those you personally find more credible. I wasn’t sure if this was apparent to you and so provided some verification.  I’ll be more direct here as requested.  The example that was pointed out was the third sentence. This statement characterizes one side of a contentious topic, employs contentious labels, and lacks an impartial tone (Wikipedia describes disputes, it does not engage in disputes).  The statement should be balanced to read something like "To his critics, he symbolized the revivalist, extremist and terrorist movement in the 1980s in Punjab, while to his supporters he was a religious leader who stood up against state oppression." (dozens of citations exist around this and some appear to have been deliberated at length above).
 * The fourth sentence was already present in the Lead and is redundantly stated using a heavily partial tone and loaded words (“escape arrest” – when no arrest warrant was issued, "militant cadre", “armed militants”). It should also be removed or balanced (supporters would argue that he was leading an armed resistance).--Tarakalak (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should not pre-judge the issue, but rather focus on presenting your evidence. CONSENSUS will be formed when the editors are able to see all sides, not by you telling them what the sides are.
 * Coming back to your apparent evidence, where was this report published? Why didn't you give us a URL for the report? Why is a report on "Sikh radicalisation in Britain" of any relevance to Bhindranwale's biography? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Puppetry
Wikipedia polices on use of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and WP:MEATPUPPETRY are rather strict and defaulting editors are immediately blocked. So please follow these policies.  D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concern on puppetry given this is an online forum and we are strangers to one another. I'm sure you also appreciate that it is reasonable to expect that multiple people may disagree with your opinion. :: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * User:Tarakalak had not edited this talk page. and within 1 hour he came and posted after your comment. which made me suspect a case of off wiki collaboration WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK so I felt it important to inform you about the policy to deal with such cases, which is by blocking the defaulter.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Collaborate
I have linked each of the policy above so that you can familiarize yourself with it. Once you read these pages and have further comments do let me know about it. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I removed your content and you felt that I was disrespecting your view. However, this page does not represent a neutral view and is littered with Contentious labels that must either be balanced (similar to the martyr statement you alluded to) or removed altogether. I do not wish to remove your contributions entirely, but to ensure balance and to restructure the content to eliminate unnecessary repetitive content. I'm happy to cooperate with you on this, however when you revert my changes without proper commentary I am finding it disruptive. I assume that you don't intend to be but would prefer if you responded with making edits of your own (in alignment with wiki policy and guidelines) rather than fully reverting the changes. :: -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southasianresearcher (talk • contribs)


 * Please note that my position on this article here is of a Neutral editor, (I neither support the Govt. sources nor SGPC/Akali/militant sources for controversial claims) and I want to keep this article as neutral as possible without violating WP:NPOV and NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content. As long as you are with me here, we can collaborate happily. If your intentions is to white wash this article as you did in your previous attempt and turn this into a fan page for Bhindranwale or adding irrelevant and non notable commentary and INDISCRIMINATE view points without any consideration of notability, you will find your efforts being resisted not only by me but several other editors of this page as well who want to enforce Wiki WP:NPOV policy to keep this controversial article neutral. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we both need to try and see this problem from different perspectives. "White washing" this article with my contributions is not in the best interest of the Wikipedia project and is a waste of time for everyone involved. That said and as I have pointed out, the current content is in violation of several areas of Wikipedia policy.  There are also several repetitive statements in the lead section as well as other issues that need to be brought in alignment with Wiki standards/guidelines WP:MOSLEAD which you are welcome to collaborate with me on.--Southasianresearcher (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please understand that lead is the summary of the full article in not more than 4 para. And the first para has to establish the notability of the person. WP:MOSLEAD.

If you have suggestion to remove any line or provide a different version, please make a new subsection below and we can then discuss if that helps the lead. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Timeout
I have tried to read through the above discussion, and couldn't get absolutely any idea of what is being talked about. There aren't any diffs given, and no content has been mentioned specifically. This talk page is meant for discussing content of the article. So, please focus on content. If you need to lecture each other about policies, please use the user talk pages. As far as I can see, this whole discussion can be hatted, because there is really no substance here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Kautilya, thank you for your comment. I agree that the whole discussion above appears to be a policy debate due to either a lack of clear understanding of existing policy or perhaps a case of WP:IDHT. Anyway I have clarified myself quite clearly in the above thread. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)