Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is not considered a criminal or a terrorist according to the Indian government making it a political murder. An RTI filed by Naveen Gupta regarding this issue brought out the information regarding his status as a common citizen that is falsely touted as a terrorist (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64663435/). Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale declared Dharam Yudh(Righteous) Morcha(War) against the government to put forth Anandpur Sahib Resolution that briefly asked for the rights of Punjab and Sikhs such as increasing the number of Sikhs in the Indian Army in resolution number 2 (section D) etc.

References https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64663435/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anandpur_Sahib_Resolution Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The RTI you linked above says, that the question should be referred to Government of Punjab. in any case, the content in the article is cited to reliable third party sources, please check the referenes.  D Big X ray ᗙ  09:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

The website is a source that can be used a secondary source. The RTI indirectly states that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is not recorded as a terroristHarmanprtjhj (talk)


 * Harmanprtjhj (talk) please share the line from the website that supports your claim. Also please see WP:INDENT and please sign your posts with ~ regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The government of India has not record of him as a terrorist. He might be in the state government but that is an assumption. “The Commission finds the reply of PIO to be in order. Law and order being a state subject, the information regarding cases registered against Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale must be held by Govt. of Punjab.” No mention from the Indian government of him being declared a terrorist by the central government. The state government cannot declare someone a terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC) The sources and distorted info which you have used are no good. At first I decided to add some neutrality but now I am recognising that this version by you is the problem that it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Harmanprtjhj please assume good faith and Comment on the content, not the contributor. Notice the template Controversial that is added on the top of this page. kindly follow the advice. regarding the content, if the RTI link you listed above had actually claimed then we could have used it. Since the RTI does not specifically mention the claim that you want to add then that source is not good enough. For controversial articles such as this, we should rely on neutral third party sources so as to steer clear of the bias that is associated with using content from a source that is not neutral. So I would request you to kindly only use neutral third party sources. You are welcome to review the sources, currently in the article and decide for yourself. also please follow WP:INDENT while replying on talk pages. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  20:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand what you are really saying. Your edits are completely non-neutral and agenda driven. I am taking sometime to look into them but as of now you are only distracting from the main issue. Have you carefully checked the article on Osama Bin Laden? Even that is more grammatical and neutral than this article written by you. You haven't even tried to address my assertions about your history with this article. Please don't evade the concerns. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Harmanprtjhj Please read the page WP:NPA immediately and follow WP:CIVIL, if you are planning to have a fruitful discussion to improve the page. If you would like to talk about any specific content, then I would be happy to reply to you, but if you are only here to exchange accusations, then please do not expect a reply from me. regards. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  21:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Where I can criticize your problematic editorializing? Anyway.. you are still not answering my question. I have said I will be back with analysis of your edits but until then you are going to do yourself a favor only if you fix the article. Anyone who knows A and B of this subject would know that article is in a very bad shape. And you absolutely know this. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray your large modification breaches wikipedia policies. I can't find anywhere if you ever discussed these changes before.

"Bhindranwale has remained a controversial figure in Indian history" has no source and it is original reasearch. For "Indian media views him as a radical terrorist", you have used rediff (which does not support the info) a book (which does not support the info and provide no page number/quote), another book (which does not support the info and provide no page number/quote). A sentence used by you two times both on body and lead are copyright violations. "level of rhetoric on the percieved "assault" on Sikh values..." and even the parts of next sentences are a copyvio from

How much you have ripped off and from an extremely bad and horrible source written by KPS Gill? Check this out. Source used by you on lead selectively butchered a sentence in your apparent drive to find most negative information. You assert this person "symbolized the revivalist, extremist and terrorist movement in the 1980s in Punjab" on lead, and used this source which is not even discussing biography of Bhinderwale. This info is itself taken from this source from 1988 and you have ignored mention of "charismatic" and "sant" when you picked this. There was no mention of "1980s" in any sources, and this was not a biographical information about Bhindranwale but more of a attempt by you to find worst sentence just to put the figure in bad light. Violation of WP:TERRORIST is also significant.

I am restoring the version prior to DBigXray since these POV edits have much factual issues. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BRD and follow the steps if you are disputing something.
 * The rediff article Akal Takht declares Bhindranwale 'martyr' is a reference to this incident related to Akal Takht.


 * I have marked the "perceived assault" line as a direct quote. And added some copy editing.
 * Wikipedia article should not use words such as "charismatic" per WP:PUFFERY
 * is a horrible source according to whom ? the content is factual and can be verified from multiple other third party sources as well.
 * About the paraphrasing, I have made further copy edits into the text to improve it.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  13:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Swamy
Sapedder, I have removed WP:UNDUE comments and allegations sourced to an active politician's statement on Indira Gandhi who isnt a subject here. You are supposed to discuss your edits here, and not engage in WP:EDITWARRING -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I can say the same about your actions. Your repeated assertion "who isn't a subject here" does not make sense, she is not just a subject, but almost central to the story. Both Swamy and Gandhi played major roles through their interactions during that period, and for that information to not be allowed to be mentioned once, just so more weaselly assertions of "TERRORIST" can be stuffed in, is almost obscurantist. And your still aren't addressing the policies your own revisions egregiously violate, WP:TERRORIST and WP:WEASEL. You yourself are mass-reverting without adequately explaining yourself. Sapedder (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate what mojor role did Swamy play here ? What is a violation of WP:TERRORIST ? -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Meeting Bhindranwale in person himself is noteworthy. Meeting Gandhi in person to talk about Bhindranwale. What came of these meetings. Swamy clearly has status in politics then and now. In any case, I don't have to justify its significance and give history lessons as no one owns the article; it was and is noteworthy, remains relevant, the sources are legit, so there is no question it belongs. It also adds balance to multiple one-sided assertions of "terrorist," which use weasel words that cast broad aspersions without naming a relevant party with these views, while endlessly questioning opposing views.
 * Your conflict with the previous editor on this page also brought attention to this. Such incendiary terms are best avoided and used sparingly, you disregard this and indeed duplicate the statement when it doesn't even belong there once, let alone twice, obviously creating a slanted article, not allowing even a relevant tag ("symbolizes" to who?). As the other editor noticed, even the article on Bin Laden is more objectively written and doesn't open like this, which only makes this article look compromised and ridiculous. Sapedder (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Meeting Bhindranwale is noteworthy" ? Do you have any idea how many people met Bhindranwale each day ? Should we start adding comments by each one of them regarding what they think about Bhindranwale and what came out of their meetings? You have cherry picked one politician who states JSB is not terrorist, I can easily post 10 notable national level politicians (with reliable and legit sources) who have made statements that JSB is a terrorist. Do you want to go down that path ?
 * Please read WP:BURDEN and understand that you are trying to add disputed content in a controversial article, "It is you who have to make a strong point on why it should be included."
 * I have warned you twice, on WP:AGF remember AGF is not optional here. You can WP:Comment on the content, not the contributor. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  06:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, a major politician meeting him in person is certainly worthy of note, he is not mentioned once even in passing in the article. This is obscuring notable information, and just because you were not aware of it, you personally deemed it unworthy of even a mention. No one owns the article. It is relevant, noteworthy (it made quite the rounds in Punjabi media, and even Punjab MPs supported his calls to declassify government docs and inquire further; this was in 2016), and sourced, and has a place in the article, if opposing opinions of those who did not meet him can be quoted so freely here.
 * And maybe you should assume good faith, the "path I wanted to go down" was not to throw sources at each other like I said at the very beginning, but to remove and tag the WP:WEASEL words you insist on defending, using repeatedly, and putting in the intro without attribution, which clearly immediately creates a narrative in the minds of readers and is placed to show up on Google, for example. Again, even the Bin Laden article doesn't do that, which doesn't make this article look trustworthy at all. You should be interested to building an encyclopedic article, not "have 10 sources" at the ready to push your favored viewpoint. Statements like those, and your refusal to budge on WP:TERRORIST and WP:WEASEL, make it very hard to AGF. Again, such sweeping incendiary terms are best avoided and used sparingly; you use it twice in the introduction alone, flagrantly violating multiple policies and pushing an opinion.
 * My initial edit was simply an IPA fix and tagging a non-neutral POV statement, nothing more. The quote was then added for some faint semblance of balance to this hopeless article only after you would not even allow a tag on your wp:weaselly statement. Your version of the article only directly quotes the opinions of several anti-JSB and a few neutral voices, but none in defense. My preferred method would be to get rid of opinionated language and quotes altogether instead of adding any, and because you can't abide that I then tried adding some slight balance, which you also have a problem with. There is an easy fix: get rid of blatant opinions dressed as facts to influence reader opinions in the intro, not using bombastic, contentious labels, explicitly attributing this opinion to a particular party, and accepting a tag on the second use of the statement. One can only hope that most internet-savvy people have the good sense to not consult Wikipedia on such a controversial topic. Sapedder (talk) 08:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I ask you again, do you know the number of politicians Bhindranwale met in his lifetime ? I would be interested to hear a rough number from you. (refs not needed). It is very obvious based on your arguements here that you are attempting WP:Tendentious editing here. You are attempting to remove information that you feel is not positive on this person. see WP:NOTCENSOR. Our article are based on what the WP:MAINSTREAM media says about a person, and not what Bhindranwale's fanboys and supporters say. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where to even begin here?
 * Please don’t waste your precious time or mine with such fatuous diversionary questions. JSB was a public figure with widespread support among rural Sikhs and the head of a prominent institution for much of his life, of course he met with many politicians. What makes Swamy *notable* is that he met him at the Darbar Sahib just prior to Blue Star, arguably the event for which JSB is best known. Given your attempts to obscure such important details, your invoking WP:NOTCENSOR is remarkably brazen and nothing but projection.  This strategy of “if you quote Swamy you will have to quote everyone JSB ever met” is silly and not worth addressing.
 * Let me spell this out ***yet again*** as simply as I can: “He symbolized terrorism” is not “information” or even an encyclopedic statement, but WP:WEASEL words, an opinion strategically presented as a fact. Please be mindful of such conventions when contributing to “our” encyclopedia. You leave it completely unattributed and strategically replicate it in the lead without any counter-balance. This is the spark that touched off this exchange, the main point, and remains utterly unaddressed by you, so please stop willfully ignoring this. The last statement in the intro is balanced and I have no problem with it; your replicated opinion throws off this balance.
 * Your random outburst against the SGPC is revealing (what do they have to do with our exchange here? And please address the content not the contributor, by attempting to prescribe motives or agendas to contributors as per WP:AGF) as was “supporters and fanboys.”
 * You have a bizarre personal definition of neutrality, where detractors are “neutral” and any opposing views are “fanboys” and “outrageous and scandalous,” therefore not worthy of inclusion (per the talk section in Archive #3). Try harder to put aside personal biases. Who is a SGPC member/supporter/fanboy? Swamy? That is ridiculous. He is a BJP Hindu nationalist politician and would likely not be on board with Sikh regionalism or separatism like JSB. (if he is a “fanboy,” post sources to that effect. Don’t forget to attribute any opinions or quotes this time!)
 * This article quotes opinions that JSB “symbolized terrorism,” “list of hates…” “practised hate thorough [sic]” (this is completely unsourced, restored twice by you), and others, with zero countervailing quotes. You were so perturbed by *a single WP:MAINSTREAM sourced quote* that undermined this narrative you are promoting, that you threatened to "list 10 sources" that decried JSB in retaliation, threatening to engage in actual WP:Tendentious editing (again, very brazen of you, you are sneaking in unattributed personal opinions and blocking info based off of WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and throw the article even more off balance. An unattributed “he symbolized terrorism” might be considered a neutral statement by the Indian government and their “fanboys” but not in an encyclopedia, please mind this. Like it or not, the English Wikipedia is not to pick sides on behalf of its readers, but presents all the facts, not opinions presented as such. Sapedder (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are not going to engage further and leave these concerns and vios completely unaddressed, perhaps we should take this to Dispute Resolution. Sapedder (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * At the onset, I must apologize for the delay caused by real life, in responding here.
 * "Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was my friend: Swamy
 * You are cherrypicking a supporters quote inorder to make a point here. There are numerous articles from Swamy cheerleading for bhindranwale a google search should suffice. let me know if you are still unable to find them. Well nothing is ridiculous here. BJP and Akali dal are coalation members in Punjab. You should take a look at the political ground realities before calling someone else ridiculous.
 * The quote you are challenging has been sourced to reliable mainstream scholarly book written by a third party author. The quote summarizes the subject well and hence has been included into the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's start with the quote being challenged, as there seems to be a willful lack of understanding here. The quote violates multiple policies including WP:WEASEL and WP:TERRORIST, and is clearly an opinion that you agree with. It is not a fact, or informative, or encyclopedic. You are leaving it unattributed and untagged, presenting it as a factual statement. "It's sourced" isn't enough for opinions, as you describe sourced third-party countervailing opinions as “outrageous and scandalous,” as per the Archive #3 talk. What does already summarize the article well is the last statement in the lead. You are in fact cherrypicking a detractor's quote (a trend that's been mentioned enough already, your definition of neutrality) to throw off this balance for a viewpoint that adds nothing but non-neutral POV.
 * Speaking of "third-party," out of curiosity, what do you make of the extensive quoting of Khushwant Singh? He was not a third party to these events, nor a representative of Sikhs, and his personal take of JSB is as partisan as any "cheerleading." Given your current operating definition of neutrality, can this be justified?
 * On to Swamy. The NDA is indeed a well-known fact, so please don't patronize. They're allied, parties and politicians change, welcome to politics. What's notable is if Swamy is by your logic "cheerleading" as a Hindu nationalist for someone who supposedly "symbolizes terrorism," and "communalism." And again, by your logic, would Swamy or the BJP support Sikh insurgency and separatism? If so, quite noteworthy (and revelatory!). Plus, Swamy's high past and present profile and meeting with JSB at the Darbar Sahib itself distinguishes himself further from other politicians. If you are insinuating that Swamy's support is politically motivated, I'm not seeing the BJP base being too happy with that, just to score points with a Sikh regional party. I've not seen a convincing reason why this isn't noteworthy beside WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * As for the DRN, it should probably proceed as I don't see this discussion going anywhere, being almost filibustering in nature. Sapedder (talk) 23:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that I have read and will reply soon as time permits. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * First things first. Your understanding of Wikipedia's policy is wrong. WP:WEASEL is not a policy. Neither is WP:TERRORIST.
 * The claim that Bhindranwale led the terrorist movement is not without substantial basis. Just a cursory look at the sources on this subject clarifies this. Wikipedia has to state what the WP:MAINSTREAM reliable sources such as the media and wide acclaimed scholarly sources state. As a part of scholarly sources it is in fact encyclopaedic and hence has been included in the article.
 * You also seem to lack an understanding of WP:MOSLEAD when you fail to understand that Lead is a summary of the entire article and can include statements that are already in the body.
 * Khushwant Singh is a noted Punjabi author and Journo. Who has written extensively criticising both the government and the fundamentalists.
 * regarding Swamy, I have presented a quote straight from the horse's mouth. Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was my friend: Swamy. His statement that you are trying to include in the article are aimed at getting politicial points, and wikipedia is not for WP:PROPAGANDA. It is expected that Awamy will say what he says and you have failed to justify why this cheerleader's statements deserve a place in the factual biography. You should understand that this is a biography of JSB and not a page to amass what X and Y said about him. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as I’ve given more than enough time for you to muster up arguments during my hiatus, these counterpoints are inadequate.
 * Point #1: Actually you would be wrong. The shortcut WP:WEASEL is right here: MOS:TERRORIST is right above that:  You use this label freely per your own personal POV and absolutely refuse to attribute this as someone’s opinion. Wikipedia is not for parroting government lines or one-sided propaganda.
 * I’ve linked these multiple times now. Actually read them for once, they’re not that long. Shorthandedly referring to them as policies doesn’t prevent them from being clear parts of the Wikipedia MOS, and standards even you have to abide by. Attempting to worm out of having to follow them based on technicalities won’t work. Affixing WP: in place of MOS: doesn’t negate them, so follow the rules.
 * Point #2: The sources on the subject state such because they are only ones you allow per your own bias. Any that say otherwise are dismissed and removed by you as, for example, “outrageous and scandalous,” per your previous edit war with someone else on this page. I’ve also brought this up countless times now; you refuse to engage on this.
 * Point #3: WP:MOSLEAD is another strawman from you. It is you who has assumed that my reason for removing your biased statement from the lead is because of repetition. This POV statement doesn’t belong in the article at all, but as a compromise I removed it from the lead while keeping it in the body, which would result in no net loss for the article. You are intent on pushing your POV that JSB was a terrorist front and center; this statement is again not even worthy of the article, much less lead-worthy. Try to ascertain my reasoning first instead of assuming and imposing your own narrative on it.
 * Point #4: This is a disingenuous attempt to evade my question. I will answer it for you, since you don’t want to: Khushwant Singh is neither a representative of Sikhs in any capacity, nor an impartial observer; he was not on good terms with JSB to say the least. This is another borderline insulting non-answer just like your answer regarding the Akali Dal in previous replies: you talk down as if I am unacquainted with these people and politics when I make a point regarding them.
 * Point #5: You wave about this Swamy article as if it’s a trump card; it only proves my point. I was the one who brought these articles up! You still have not given a single reason why a high-profile, long-serving Hindutva politician would say such a thing about or associate with a supposedly “Hindu-hating terrorist.” (By the way, “thirty-two Hindus” in the Communalism section is a misrepresented quote in response to hate speech by Bal Thackeray of the right-wing Hindu paramilitary RSS, but you won’t balance that of course.) You only want to obscure all mention of a major Hindu political figure who spent an extended period of time with JSB just prior to the crucial events of 1984. This is WP:CENSOR, and simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Inconvenient facts are not propaganda; you also seem to misunderstand WP:PROPAGANDA entirely.
 * And “politicial [sic] points” for what? For the support of <2% Sikhs at the expense of his enormous cow-belt Hindu nationalist base? Did the Akali Dal support JSB’s separatism, and by extension the BJP? (Again, if so, an explosive headline, certainly worthy of mention!) Is he running for regional Punjab elections? He is nowhere near Punjab or Punjabi in any regard. Spare me your attempts at political commentary.
 * You keep repeating “good faith,” but you do not argue in good faith. During this whole exchange, you either ignore and refuse to engage on my points entirely, constantly erect strawmen, or give condescending non-answers.
 * Also, try harder to hide your personal feelings on the matter, and refrain from throwing around terms like “fanboy”, “cheerleader,” and of course, unattributed “terrorist,” as well as whatever personal problem you have with the SGPC, which is in fact a major Sikh representative, unlike Khushwant. Try to use neutral terms like “supporter” and “detractor." This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog.
 * I don’t have the time to be a regular contributor, so you may yet succeed in successfully maintaining your slant in the article, though other options may present themselves in the near future. Sapedder (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2019
Hello the information about Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale on this article is incorrect, he was not an extremist or terrorist, he was a saint, he was hero and a leader who wanted justice for sikhs that were being treated unfairly and unequally.The Indian government labeled Jarnail Singh as a terrorist as propaganda so the media and community would be against him.The indian government wanted to wipe out the followers of the sikh faith thats why during 1984 during the attack on the Golden Temple complex, 40 other gurdwaras (sikh place of worship) were attacked by the indian goverment. I ask you to please make these corrections and research this correctly before this article is published again becasue right now the majority of this article is incorrect and is spreading misinformation to many people.Everybody deserves to know the correct information so there are no misunderstandings,Thank you for your time. 98.217.49.186 (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  D Big X ray ᗙ  08:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Jarnail singh bhindranwale (cropped).jpg

The week article on SG
User:Vaibhavafro first of all, I do not appreciate your cheeky edit summaries, so kindly desist in repeating it again. read WP:EDITSUMMARY to understand what you are supposed to write there. Secondly, the content you have added has several problems that have not been fixed despite being asked by me. 1. The week article is attributing someone else's statement and it is not the investigation of Week. The way you have put it here seems as if it has been verified by Week, no it has not been. Saying so amounts to misrepresentation of the source. secondly the week states there is some kind of dispute on the kill. you have completely skipped that, any reason ? IMHO you should state that as well. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  07:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions. I have fixed all that. The disputed kill was earlier mentioned in the main article. Please note that there is a difference between “disputed” and “masked”. Reading The Week’s article, one can be clear that the SG guys are indicating a ’masked’ kill rather than disputed one. &#8212;&#x202F; Vaibhavafro &#x202F;&#128172; 08:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have fixed your WP:INDENT above. yeah whatever has been said and is in public domain should be mentioned. We do not want Wiki to take sides and give credits to ParaSF or SG alone. Your improvement has fixed it now. I am ok with the content now. regards.-- D Big X ray ᗙ  08:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020
There has been much misinformation, facts completely removed and instead false, misleading info given to tarnish the image of this legend 173.181.42.114 (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was not part of any terrorist group. The only group he was part of was to help his fellow Sikh people and gain independence to build a separate state for the Sikhs because for many years Sikhs always had been mistreated and looked at the wrong way. India didn’t care once for it Sikh people. So that why Bhindranwale started a group. He was a great leader who helped many people who weren’t fully Sikhs to become gurSikhs -(guru’s Sikh). There are so many videos on YouTube and books to buy online on him and from those videos and books he seems to be a peaceful holy man, which he was. People mislead him as a terrorist because of his long beard, turban, and a knife in his hand. He was not a terrorist. He was a really great leader and a saint. In Sikhism, keeping a long beard and uncut hair shows respect to God and the Gurus. The small knife is a sign of protection. If anyone was in trouble in any situation and there was no police to save, them the Sikhs would step in and sacrifice their life for others. 2601:204:D302:C400:D5CB:9D79:249F:4BDF (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The description is backed up with multiple references. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale wasn’t part of any terrorist group. The only group he was part of was to help gain independence to build a separate state for the Sikhs because for many years in India, Sikhs were mistreated and looked at in a wrong way. India didn’t care once for its Sikh population nor did the same to the Muslims population. Gandhi didn’t like either of them only the Hindus because he was one. And many other leaders in India were most the same and also life as a Sikh in India was really hard. So that why Bhindranwale started a group with his Sikhs to build Khalistan and also the group helped many poor families in Punjab during the hard times for the Sikhs. Many looked at them as heroes. Khalistansikh10 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020
False Accusation of Terrorism
 * answered= no

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was leader of Damdami Taksal. Damdami Taksal is Sikh educational university. Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was arrested only once by Punjab Police and no charges were laid by police. Till today there is no law or act passed by parliament in India which can be used to convict person as terrorist. Afzal Guru was given capital punishment under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), however POTA was never passed[97] by Indian Parliament. There is no conviction of terrorism or any charges laid on Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala in relation to terrorism. He is remembered by Sikhs as Martyr. There is no ruling, judgement of any court that mentioned Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as Terrorist.

Gurjit mehroke (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Is this a Twitter or Reddit thing? In the possibly vain hope that the next solicited editor might actually read these responses before posting the next near-identical request:


 * 1) The existence of lack thereof of a criminal conviction is not a necessary component to characterizing an article subject. Many, many, terrorists are never convicted since they die in the course of the action that results in their being described as "terrorists".
 * 2) The article does not actually label him a "terrorist" Our policy on this is quite clear: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. Despite what you may have read elsewhere, Wikipedia takes no position on this.
 * 3) It does say: "...he is widely regarded in India as a terrorist." Our policy on this is equally clear: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects
 * 4) This is what reliable secondary sources say. This is verifiable by the links given, as another of our core policies demands
 * Further request to "stop calling him a terrorist" will be similarly rejected. Arguments based on special pleading that the community he once belonged to regards him differently and therefore he can't be called a terrorist will be discarded immediately.
 * Simply version: We don't call him a terrorist. We say that many Indians think he was a terrorist. This is a significant difference. This is also a verifiable reflection of what reliable sources say.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This page is about Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. This is not about what majority think of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale. If there is a place of what majority think about Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale then there must be a place for what minority think of him as a Sikh Leader. It wont be impartial to emphasize one view and disregard the another view.

I understand many terrorist die in action without conviction. Eg Osama Bin Laden, American Govt declared him terrorist and killed him. He was on the most wanted list of FBI. This information is displayed on Wikepedia Website. The edit I suggested simply forwarding the point that he was not on any terror list or most wanted list of any country and if he is then brought up the evidence of such information. So this is very biased approach to ignore the principal of neutrality and impartiality when Eggishorn commented above :

and :Further request to "stop calling him a terrorist" will be similarly rejected. Arguments based on special pleading that the community he once belonged to regards him differently and therefore he can't be called a terrorist will be discarded immediately.

Further Eggishorn says that we dont call him terrorist. But my edit is for adding separate paragh which is also another view held by many.

Source of information is its common knowledge in public domain and also Wikepedia "Damdami Taksal Page" too.

I look forward to have my paragh added.

15:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Gurjit mehroke (talk)
 * , your request violates all three of the Core Content Policies and therefore cannot be added. Please read, understand, and follow these policies before making further requests. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)