Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 6

Politics (Congress)
, like others I would frankly suggest a full rewrite as there are too many issues with the current article to really even pick a place to start, but in the interest of getting the ball rolling, I would perhaps suggest the Politics section to be amended along the lines of my edit (07:14, 27 April 2020). (For my edit I merged the section intro and the Congress section into one extended intro section, preceding the section on the 1978 clashes. About the section: So as you can see these are some of the flaws in one section alone. The amount of damage to be undone here is almost dizzying, so I can see why several others also favor a rewrite. But again, I offer this section (or sections, as it were) first so we can get moving. Sapedder (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Section: The one-sided POV of JSB as being "selected" without agency by Congress is only advanced by partisans as a facile way to dismiss him without having to address seriously the regional concerns he pushed for. Looking at actual objective scholarship removed from the scene, this is discussed in better depth by Mahmood, refuted by Pettigrew, and I would say even flipped by Telford, who argues that it was the opposite -- that JSB used Congress (which Mahmood also arguably says). The Damdami Taksal and Congress weren't unknown quantities to each other either and already had a history of friction before JSB, which he himself would allude to.
 * Wording: The opening line "Bhindranwale symbolized the revivalist, extremist and terrorist movement in Punjab,[4] and was responsible for the launching the Sikh Militancy," is one of several redundancies (the "symbolized" part is already in the article lede, and the "launched" part is in the "Legacy" section). DBigXray did this "interweaving" a lot, about 6 or 7 POV statements are spammed two or three times each throughout the article (this is a deeper structural problem of the article that IMO is yet another reason justifying a rewrite), creating many redundancies throughout, as I mentioned in my edits summaries. Going on, there is nothing but more primary-source Congressite contempt (from Khushwant and KPS Gill), then an unsourced bit of "practised hate thorough (sic)," rounded out by some ancient Times of India commentary from a non-scholar about this strategy of picking JSB being followed by him almost immediately going rogue (so much for being a stooge). Both Mahmood and Crenshaw mention this theory as the likely result of Akali rumors in 1983 as they lost influence to him due to factors discussed in other sections in my version, and this should be acknowledged.
 * The lede: I know you want to avoid the lede for now due to contentiousness, but the Politics section bleeds into it, again courtesy of DBigXRay's interweaving. Specifically, the second half of the second paragraph again concerning the "picked by Congress" stuff, which, in addition to the issues just addressed, is wp:undue in the lede. It is a nuanced discussion that should remain in its appropriate section. The opening lines of the lede are also POV, with its specific placement of redundancies perhaps meant to influence Google searches. I would frankly recommend something like my own edit to the lede (08:20, 27 April 2020), which consists of objective facts for most of it, capped by a brief "some people consider him this, some that" to tie things up and acknowledge his controversial legacy without dwelling on it.


 * Thanks for the getting the ball-rolling. To separate this (hopefully) more focussed discussion from the general discussion about how (in principle) to improve the article and the best starting point for that, I have moved your post to a new section. The next step would be to see how scholars (not newspapers; not memoirs/narratives by involved parties) deal with this subject. You mention Mahmood, Pettigrew and Telford (please correct me if you referring to some other works by these authors than what I have linked to); the current article vesrion cites Crenshaw, Tully & Jacob, Kochanek & Hardgrave, and Khushwant Singh along with some other sources that are less-academic and/or by involved parties. I'll try to gain access and look these sources up, and also see how secondary sources/textbooks characterize the Bhindranwale-Congress relationship since their distillation of primary scholarship and reporting can often guide our write-up. Will get back in about a day. In the meantime, others are welcome to suggest other quality sources that are worth considering. Abecedare (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The version proposed by Sapedder through his diff is unacceptable because of the poor sourcing that has been liberally used. has already explained above why Cibotti and Sathananthan  among others are poor sources, unfit for this article. Dusenbery reviewed both Mahmood and Pettigrew and concluded that both are unabashedly biased in favour of the Khalistanis and present a highly romanticized version of events so, these biased sources should not be used. The proposed draft would need to be rewritten after dropping these biased sources. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear, Dusenbery argues that sources like Pettigrew and Mahmood need to be contextualized by more balanced accounts by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, and works by other scholars... specifically Veena Das, Stanley Jeyaraja Tambiah, and Harjot Oberoi. While he does mention Mahmood and Pettigrew have bias, he is not dismissive. WP:BIASED states Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. and Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. Again, this falls exactly in line Dusenbery's recommendation of presenting the works with context and juxtaposition. It is sufficient to provide WP:INTEXT attribution for Pettigrew and Mahmood where there is disagreement, and alternate viewpoints. --Elephanthunter (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In regards to Pettigrew and Mahmood, basically what Elephanthunter said. With proper attribution there's no problem. Dusenbery himself indeed never discounts them. He himself raises the need to "hear the voices in those books," but in conjunction with other accounts. He also cautions against those who "otherwise dismiss" such accounts as those of "terrorists and fundamentalists," which arguably invalidates many of the sources you advocate for, as well as XRay's whole article, ironically enough. Concerns need to be noticed fairly, which is hard to see out of you as you did not make a peep about such concerns during Xray's edit campaign, and continue to stay silent on the article's deficiencies.
 * In regards to Cibotti and Sathananthan, bringing them up in regards to this section is irrelevant (one of the reasons why I picked this section first) and your mention of them doesn't support your assertion that your mass reversion wasn't blind. Cibotti tags was only used a handful of times in this section and has already been removed from it (he was mostly used alongside other tags), and Sathananthan was never present at all.
 * On a side note, simplistically equating JSB with Khalistanis is reminiscent of the approach the government took. If the government expended as much energy addressing the largely economic and developmental Akali/Punjabi concerns as it did dismissing them and demonizing those who raised them, such secessionist movements would likely have never gained any traction. Sapedder (talk) 05:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, so here is survey of what scholars say about Bhindranwale-Congress relationship during his early years in public life. I have tried to access all the sources mentioned previously in this section in addition to several others I located during the lit-search; I couldn't access Pettigrew 1995 and didn't find anything relevant to this narrow topic in the writings of Veena Das and Harjot Oberoi (will welcome pointers to anything I missed), but other than that I think I have covered all the mentioned sources.
 * Below, for convenience I have divided the works into history textbooks (picking only the well-established titles for Indian history), books and book chapters (all from university/academic press with the exception of Tully's book given his background of on-the-ground BBC reporting and since his work is cited by numerous other sources included here), and journal articles (there are plenty more than the ones listed, esp. if we include contemporary articles in EPW etc, but most of them repeat the points already included in this selection and I don't believe I missed any major POV). For readability I have removed the internal citations from these quotes, and anything in [] in the extracts below is explanatory gloss added by me since I didn't want to quote excessive amounts of surrounding material that would provide that context.


 * History textbooks


 * Other books and book chapters


 * Journal articles


 * My takeaways from this survey:
 * Given the attention devoted to this topic by various sources, particularly the inclusion in history textbooks that otherwise cover the whole of Bhindranwale's life + Operation Blue Star in one or two paras, the topic is certainly worthy of inclusion in the wikipedia article's lede.
 * That Congress aided/promoted JBS during the early stages of his political career is the mainstream view (whether that is "true" or not is immaterial to our discussion), with even the dissenters prefacing their objections by acknowledging that.
 * The view, as expounded by Telford and Jeffries, that JBS was (also) exploiting Congress may be worth mentioning briefly.
 * The thesis that Congress "created" JBS (as laid out most extensively by Tully) or its refutation (by Telford and Mahmood) are neither worth including, since most of the sources don't discuss the issue in such simplistic terms.
 * I don't spot any unidirectional change in scholarly views over the last quarter-century that would support any claim that scholars thought X before but think Y now. I have listed the extracts in each of the three categories in reverse chronological order, so discussants can check this for themselves.
 * Comments and further sources (of comparable quality) welcome. Abecedare (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC) (Updated/expanded the extracts. 01:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC))
 * , addressing point-by-point:
 * I would be OK with a mention that doesn't take up half the lede (a balanced one, that also incorporates your 3rd point where JBS had agency, and mentioned as the mainstream view and not written authoritatively as currently). The reason why I prefer it in the body though is so that it can be discussed alongside other "internal" state-specific factors that added to JBS' support at the expense of the Akalis (disaffection among the Akali youth wing and the popularity of Communism and other politics among the youth as a result of economic, developmental, and employment woes in the state; the lack of diversification of such sectors which was reinforced by the center; growing resentment over the ineffectiveness of center-state negotiations up to that point, and the constant need for rights movements like the Punjabi Suba; the Akali neglect of its own 1973 Anandpur Sahib Resolution (which arguably itself is a result of Indira's Emergency, which distracted the Akali Dal who briefly "secularized" during the 70s for both political prudence and to ally with others to counteract Emergency violations, leaving a significant constituency of Sikhs discontent with the Akalis on Punjab/Sikh issues, setting the stage for JSB's quick rise, which Congress took advantage of to get back at the Akali Dal, which would end up allying with JSB anyway); etc. Instead of cramming all this in the lede, I preferred all of it to be left in the Politics section, which is still early enough in the article, imo, and can fully discuss all factors in his rise, not just the Congress angle.
 * Agree, but per points raised immediately above
 * Agree, I added Telford and Mahmood to balance (perhaps my use of "refute" was not quite accurate) the views already present, as I went out of my way to not delete such views.
 * Agree, it is a facile argument either way and creates a battleground where there doesn't need to be.
 * Agree, no major shifts have occurred. Just want to take a moment to appreciate all this legwork in preparation for the edit, thanks. Sapedder (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

, I still think that the isolated Congress mention is wp:undue and is given too much weight in the lead, and should be discussed as part of the contextualized chain of events (laid out in my comment directly above) that it was a part of. The Politics section will already be leading off with that topic, and that section is placed very early on in the article anyway. This bit was added 30 August 2018 by XRay without any consensus (and right before he reverted other legitimate edits, at least the Tribune-sourced stuff)

Now that the lock has ended, in addition to the edits to the Politics section and the lede already under discussion, and in order to make up for lost time and really get a move on (it has been over a month now with no changes), I would like to suggest a few other additional sections to edit which would be relatively straightforward: AISSF, Damdami Taksal, and Early Life. The AISSF section would be an entirely new section (which can just be scrutinized directly without needing an involved comparison with an older version, like with most of the other edits), "Early life" is simply a ref fix with no change in content, and "Damdami Taksal" simply adds a bit more information and some neutral rewriting (Cibotti refs removed from the section of course).

Also ping, , and. Sapedder (talk) 04:16, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not immediately seeing any issues with the changes you've listed for AISSF, Damdami Taksal, and Early Life. --Elephanthunter (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, that makes two editors in favor of these particular edits. I'll wait for a day or two for other replies, then go ahead with these edits, along with an edit adding the sources in the bibliography. It's been three days and no editor active during that time has voiced any concerns so far. Sapedder (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sapedder, Bhindranwala was not a member of AISSF, and this is not an article on Punjab politics so please justify the need to include such a large section about AISSF here. On Damdami Taksal section, a lot has already been said about the poor sourcing used there. None of the feedback has been used to improve this. Kindly move them to your sandbox to improve the sections with quality sources and when it is ready for discussion, please propose it in a separate thread, to reduce the clutter. No objection in regard on the Early life section. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've restored the content you reverted on AISSF since it's been four days and you have made no effort to participate in the continued discussion. The AISSF seems pretty relevant, regardless. I suggest you read over WP:DRNC and take a moment to find a middle ground with the people who responded to you. We're all working together here. --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

IMHO AISSF deserves a place here, with most of the focus on AISSF-JSB relationship rather than on AISSF as an organization in isolation. After reading Sapedder's proposed text, I do find it to be focused on the former. Perhaps the text can be somewhat trimmed still. My sincere apologies that I am very busy right now so am unable to trim myself but trust that Sapedder/others can take a quick stab. If not I can try it after some days. But I do agree that we should try to get a move on now. I have not reviewed the Damdami Taksal changes but it appears the main contention there is on one particular source (Cibotti) which Sapedder seems to be agreeing to take out, so I guess we can try to get a move on there as well and start pushing some changes. Cheers, JoyceGW1 (talk) 08:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @GSS: The AISSF is an essential part of the story as it redirected alienated Akali youth politics of the time, put political pressure on the Akalis by playing a role in JSB's rise as a major support base for him, and was led by his closest Taksal associate. It is absolutely relevant. In addition, it is referred to by multiple sources. The section isn't even particularly large, especially not in relation to the eventual size of the article, which requires major expansion anyway. DBigxrays's article omits all mention of it completely, which is yet another massive flaw to add to the long list of them. Keep in mind that his version is illegitimate, POV, and never achieved an ounce of consensus, so it is not the standard to judge subsequent edits by.
 * For the Damdami Taksal section, I take it you are referring to Cibotti here. An update for you: the Cibotti source was removed long ago with relative ease (I mentioned my willingness to do this on 28 April, despite your assertion that "none of the feedback has been used to improve this") so there is no need to worry about it any more. The info drawn from it is by no means exclusive to it (the citations were replaced largely by Jetly and others), and it was only used for the last three sentences (one of which uses an additional source), which can be backed with other existing sources just as easily (even critical ones like Tully and Khushwant), so overstating its usage in that section serves no purpose. The "poor" source that you routinely bring up as an obstruction has been a non-factor for weeks now (what I linked to was an old diff for general reference).
 * As for a separate talk section for the Damdami Taksal, the edit is a minor addition to a small section of a few lines from already-present sources. Separate talk sections should be kept for existing article sections requiring large-scale overhauls imo, not every minor edit. In addition, a sandbox version for a few more sentences is unnecessary, as the old diff suffices here. I would be willing to provide a sandbox version of the main Politics section under discussion though, as well as the lead, as those edits are more involved. Sapedder (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

On the Congress-JSB relationship, the lead section of the present article does seem to be unbalanced. It reads as if someone took text that (may) belong to the body of the article and moved it all out upfront. So I support moving that part to the article body. At the same time, no objection to a terse and balanced representation in the lead as well. I truly hope we can start pushing some changes to the article now (without any edit wars), on this issue and some of the other aspects Sapedder has mentioned so far (AISSF, Taksal). JoyceGW1 (talk) 08:36, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the sources, the minor Early Life edits, and the AISSF section, as I feel that the addition of the AISSF section has been justified at this point. For the Politics section, I have prepared a Sandbox version as a preview before I add it along with the Damdami Taksal edits. Again I will give it a day or two for everyone's thoughts. Sapedder (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

, you cannot keep doing this. You asked for justification, got it from multiple users, and did not respond for several days even while active on Wiki (as is your habit), but your reversion was prompt like it always seems to be for some reason. It seems like you are stalling the process by asking for discussion because you barely participate beyond vague complaints. I ask that your response to discussions be as immediate as your reversions. can't always be here to formulate constructive criticisms for you to latch on to, so you need to actually name a specific complaint regarding the AISSF edit or stop obstructing the process. Also ping who reverted your reversion. Sapedder (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with your comment above that makes some very strong claims, without providing any evidence in the form of RS to back those claims. As I said earlier Bhindranwale was not a member of AISSF, and this is not an article on Punjab politics. If you want to generate consensus the WP:ONUS is on you to provide strong RS that discussed the involvement of JSB in AISSF. I can't understand what is your rush to force this controversial paragraph into the article, without generating consensus first. Currently, there is no consensus to add it to the article and Elephant hunter's revert of me is a blatant edit warring. @Elephanthunter I request you not to engage in edit war again and wait for a consensus to emerge. Edit warring will only lead to the article getting locked yet again. Pinging  for his comments. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The relevance of the section has been established several times by multiple users now, you just don't want to accept it and keep repeating yourself while ignoring rebuttals. Acting like politics isn't relevant here is just silly and a weak attempt to obstruct. The section is about the AISSF in relation to JSB, what is so hard to understand here? Yet again, it was an early significant support base of disaffected Akali youth, had socioeconomic parallels with the Taksal, his right-hand man was elected its leader, it is a necessary part of the story, and is mentioned in multiple sources. As for RS, the "onus" has been long fulfilled, so go and read the sources yourself. I don't know what you hope to achieve by acting like every statement isn't solidly cited, it just comes off as strange.


 * Characterizing anything as a "rush" is ridiculous. It had been a month and a half of interminable talk page messages before I went ahead and added content. I've revised and re-revised my draft to keep the sources Wikipedia-compliant, accepted the illegitimate XRay version of the article as the starting point just to get things going, accepted section-by-section discussion, wait several days between discussions to gather opinions, addressed concerns, took your suggestion to use the Sandbox on board, and done everything by the book. As I predicted, the process slowed to a creep and will take years at this pace, as discussions over any edit go nowhere with you. You drag you feet for the few times you do participate in discussion, and only show up quickly to revert or get the article locked. What Elephanthunter did was not "blatant edit warring," and you would do well to read the page that they linked to (WP:DRNC). Reversion is not the answer to everything. This obstinate stalling behavior makes it hard to assume good faith from you.


 * I put the AISSF and other sections up for discussion to make up for the time wasted during the article lock, seeing that it would be a simple addition without any need to compare diffs or anything intensive, but even that is a problem for you (what isn't?).


 * And of course you haven't commented regarding the Politics sections even once, despite multiple requests, but if past actions are any indication, you would be quick to revert anything regardless of the discussion anyway. Sapedder (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Also while we're here, go ahead now and list any concerns you have on the section I put up in my sandbox as you yourself requested, since I don't want to repeat this nonsense every time a new section is up for review. Sapedder (talk) 03:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

,, , , and other interested users: Hopefully everyone has had a chance to view the version of the section I have posted in the Sandbox for a few days. Leave any suggestions and legitimate concerns, if it's all clear leave a comment so it can be added in the next day or so and and we can move to the lead, which I will also post to the Sandbox in a similar process to this section. Sapedder (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have received the pings but not kept up with the recent discussion. Will read through and get back with any comments I may have in about 48h. Abecedare (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Caught up in some real-life work. Should be able to look into this over the weekend. Abecedare (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , the sandbox version you have up for review is meant to be a substitute for the text in the current Section 3 until the end of 3.1, correct ? Thanks, JoyceGW1 (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, it will end before the Nirankari section. I merged the two sections as the current section intro is just unanswered POV that will be moved to another section and balanced, and both the Akalis and Congress are relevant to the Politics discussion and JSB in the late 1970s, not just Congress, so this subheading is unnecessary imo. Sapedder (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, makes sense to me. JoyceGW1 (talk) 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment
Dear editors who have developed this article regarding the life of Sant Jarnail Singh Ji Bhindranwale, I would like to suggest an edit, when searching Sant Jarnail Singh Ji's name on Google or any search engine the first both of information which I believe is a sensitive as well as manipulated statement that "He symbolised the revivalist, extremist and terrorist movement in Punjab". Firstly I would like to break down this statement into the 3 key takeaway the audience will find and would like to define these, Revivalist refers to an individual who has been able to revive a religion and aspects of the religion that may have vanished. Furthermore, extremist one who has a very extreme political or religious view and the definition of terrorist alludes to a person who utilises violent and illegal methods against members of society driven by religion or a political view.

In regards to Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, the choice of words has been highly bias (one sided) as many editors have pointed out that "many people" have varying views on Sant Jarnail Singh's life/achievements. Whilst not trying to sound one sided I would like to point out that Sant Jarnail Singh does not have any pending criminal charges under the legislation of India especially Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act which was made effective in 1985, as there has been no physical proof presented by the Indian authorities to prove that Sant Jarnail Singh Ji was acquitted of any illegal activity. I strongly believe in the theory "Innocent until proven guilty" and is an approach taken by the judicial system.

Further discussing the use of the word "extremist", the stereotype formed with this word can be very manipulative, many people link this very closely with a terrorist or constructs a negative reputation of the individual. Whilst remaining neutral may I suggest a synonym for the label EXTREMIST, activist as this label will fit very well with his messages and core goal of reforming the judicial and social formations that was highly corrupted and changed post the British Colonial approach which found an array of negative impacts upon our beloved country such as the introduction of English Liquor which has had a negative impact on society as India records high levels of adults who consume such a toxic liquid, as seen in Lockdown COVID the government was forced to reopen Liquor stores immediately as it formed a large portion of the states and nations tax revenue.

If you hear many of his speech's he preached for equality and freedom from the corrupt government who failed to preserve the agreement of Punjab (north India) being an independent nation and that being the land of the 5 rivers it was to receive monetary allowance for any water that other states utilise or consumer from the state which is a topic still occurring as Punjab is losing water in its land as well as rivers/canals the corrupt governments are giving out millions and millions of litres of water to other nations free of charge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.7.140 (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, several registered editors on this page, and countless other people judging by the page history, have taken issue with the current wording/POV of the entire article, which currently favors slanted opinions over objective details, in addition to the lead. I also believe that the "revivalist, terrorist" thing was strategically replicated there for Google views by a retired user without consensus on a wild editing spree two years ago. This is in the process of being addressed, though it may take a while. Sapedder (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 June 2020
Remove the extra and take away the Under construction template as it won't be edited anytime soon. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 09:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Interim lead proposal and Appeal to administrators
Given that the pace of updates to the article has been rather slow and still ongoing, I suggest that an interim (i.e. temporary) version of the lead section be put in place till a better consensus version emerges. It has been repeatedly pointed out here by several editors that the existing lead version is unbalanced, illegitimate, ridden with extraordinary controversial claims, so it should not be allowed to stay there as a default version.

I had listed the changes |in this talk page post and edited the lead section |here. Even though the article is currently protected, it appears that we can still appeal to an administrators to make changes. So, if you agree with this interim (again, temporary) lead section, till a better version emerges based on ongoing discussions, please comment here and make a quick appeal.

Pinging administrator to appeal to them.

Thanks, JoyceGW1 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 4 June 2020
Please add 'Sant' Word before the name 'Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale'. Please Remove 'Militant' Word from page.He was not militant.please accept my request. Thank you. 223.185.43.36 (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. I don't understand the reasoning for your first request. As for your second request, it's best to ground it in reliable sources. El_C 03:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit war, who violated policy ?, page protection
Couple of issues here:


 * It appears that GSS has reported me for edit warring, even though in my understanding they are the one who seem to have violated the policy by doing four reverts (An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page is what the policy states). I did only three reverts, if my understanding of the word revert is correct. I would genuinely like to understand the correct policy here, and also ask GSS to comment why they have reported me when it is them who seem to have violated the policy with four reverts ?


 * And GSS have also again successfully gotten the page protected to their preferred version. And they are now even trying to sabotage any efforts to get the page unprotected which would allow the normal course of discussions going on for more than a month to proceed. I am promising that I will not revert further so as to not violate the policy. So the two week protection seems unnecessary.

Thanks,JoyceGW1 (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Editors can be warned or blocked for edit warring, even if 3 reverts were not performed in the last 24 hours on the page by the editor. I quote from the edit warring policy: The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. I am leaving the report to another admin, so it will be another admin's decision about whether you or GSS should be warned / blocked for edit warring. I am aiming to keep my participation here solely about the full protection.
 * As I have noted above, unprotecting the page now may lead another editor to restore your changes and so the edit war then would continue. Full protection for edit wars is designed to stop all edits as it ensures no edits are made which continue the edit war by any editor. This also encourages discussion on the talk page and if consensus is reached, edit requests can be used to implement the edits with consensus. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that JoyceGW1's attempt to remove well-sourced information was clearly his own decision after and there is no consensus on this matter and he made no attempt to invite/ping anyone to discuss the changes. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 11:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dreamy Jazz. I understand the distinction being made there between defining edit warring and the three revert rule. GSS has definitely violated the three revert rule as they made four reverts within a very short period. I had stopped precisely at three reverts (not counting my original edit as a revert) since I did not want to violate the policy, and even warned GSS not to engage in further reversion but discuss on talk, but they paid no heed and made the fourth revert and got the page protected, as usual.

My edit was not made in response to the anon user's post, so GSS would be better off not making assumptions. As was clearly stated in my |talk page post prior to the edit, it was meant to put an interim (which means temporary) lead in place till a consensus version emerges. The current lead has extraordinary controversial claims just sitting there while GSS keeps edit warring, stalling the process, and getting the page protected repeatedly. JoyceGW1 (talk) 14:17, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? this comment which you are calling "my talk page post prior" was added half an hour after this request by anon and you were clearly told not to remove those controversial contents without a full consensus, you were asked to seek consensus, you were requested to stop edit warning, but you continue reverting purposely. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am serious. Please respond to why you violated policy and made four reverts even after being warned. JoyceGW1 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because you were removing those controversial well sourced statements without any consensus and by knowing that the discussion is still on which is not at all acceptable. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

End result of the report filed by GSS against me at breakneck speed: ''The page at Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale has been fully protected two weeks by User:Dreamy Jazz. This is fortunate for the participants here who otherwise could both have been blocked.'' So both are warned, and I would urge GSS to please tread carefully here going ahead. While this was my first edit on this page, GSS has been engaging in edit warring with multiple editors now who have otherwise been trying their level best to work with them in good faith. I would urge GSS to also reciprocate the good faith. Best wishes, JoyceGW1 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 June 2020
In § Negotiations, please replace Narasimha Rao, which links to a list of people having that surname, by piped link [ [P. V. Narasimha Rao|Narasimha Rao]]. Certes (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Izno (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 June 2020
Kulsher dhugga (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2020 (UTC)change date of birth it is mentioned wrong

Change it Kulsher dhugga (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. @Kulsher dhugga: What date are you proposing changing to, and per what sources? —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Check any source from Google the exact date of birth is February not June Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

जरनैल सिंह भिंडरांवाले पंजाबी: ਜਰਨੈਲ ਸਿੰਘ ਬਰਾੜ, 12 फ़रवरी 1947 - 6 जून 1984) भारतीय पंजाब में सिखों के धार्मिक It is from Google Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Hope you will cure this problem Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

People's will mislead by this because this the month of June also the month of his death Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Other sources also tells the same date of 12 February Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I can't parse a link out of that to verify. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Wait i will give you Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How can i send a link to you? Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Check this Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Rather than this please check your other Wikipedia page they also mention birth date of 12 February expect than only this page all pages and blog on Google show the birth date of 12 February other than that, as a sikh i also read many articles on sant jarnail singh ji all commited his birth date 12 February Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

MR. FRED please take this issue very seriously because this will going to be mislead many Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * This should work: February 12, 1947 --Elephanthunter (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @Elephanthunter: It would help if it weren't sourced to a self-published book (lulu.com). —C.Fred (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * But it does help that he's got some serious editing and writing credentials. —C.Fred (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * , if you are okay with the Sandbox version I put up two weeks ago, do leave a quick note stating your position at the end of the Holy day, Article status tag section that JoyceGW1 started, so we can demonstrate consensus and see where everyone stands. Leave any questions, comments etc. there as well. So far no one has named any concerns with the proposed version, so I plan to put it up soon after the lock ends (I wanted to wait for, but he may be busy with other work and there's no telling when he will return, so I would like to demonstrate the consensus on the edit, add it, and move on the the next section already. I feel that we have been more than patient with the process thus far, and can't keep letting GSS obstruct the entire process, especially when he barely participates in discussion about the specific sections.) Sapedder (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, please now update on Wikipedia page also i shall be thankful for this kind act Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Still showing same? Are you going to change it now? Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter check all other references also that will also showing same date of 12 February Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done @Elephanthunter: The edit filter actually red-flagged that source. I overrode it after looking into the writer's background. —C.Fred (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thnku so much Kulsher dhugga (talk) 01:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

But here is one more problem when we searched sant jarnail singh bhindranwale on Google one page still shows the old date of 2 june Kulsher dhugga (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also check this out Kulsher dhugga (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * @Kulsher dhugga: That's a Google concern, not a Wikipedia concern. We can't control their search results. —C.Fred (talk) 02:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

OK Thnku Mr C. Fred Kulsher dhugga (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Holy day, Article status tag
I saw the recent insertions and reverts related to date when Bluestar was carried out. I do not believe anyone who is familiar with the matter should need to be convinced that the timing of the assault did coincide with a major day of the Sikh calendar. It does need proper sourcing still which should be very straightforward to provide.

Having said that, it is really a matter of small detail right now, when you look at how unbalanced and distorted this overall article and its lead section are. So I would suggest we wait for the ongoing improvements for now, rather than starting an edit war over this single piece of detail. On this note, I did want to suggest that we place some sort of a tag on the article to let the readers know that this article is undergoing major discussions and updates. This should drive down significantly the high density of insertions and edits being made by several new users or IP addresses who I presume keep coming in after finding how unbalanced this article is. If you agree then please go ahead and place some relevant tag, else I will check further at a later time. Cheers, JoyceGW1 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that adding a template is justified, so thanks for that. I was considering some weeks ago to add a multiple issues template for lack of neutrality, factual accuracy, substandard writing, lack of consensus, etc., but decided to focus on editing the article instead, as I did not predict the process would take as long as it is.
 * As for the lead (and the addition of the holy day info there), yes it can be easily sourced but I'm not too worried about it at the moment, as that section is hopefully next on the list to be completely renovated anyway, after we conclude with Politics. (For any users wondering why I have not gone ahead and made the Politics edits, as no one has raised issue with the Sandbox write-up, I am just awaiting Abecedare's perspective that GSS requested, which will hopefully put the last seal of approval on the section, and I can add it without triggering an edit war. For everyone who approves the Sandbox write-up, I would appreciate explicit endorsement of it here on this page, to establish where everyone stands.) Sapedder (talk) 08:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I have reviewed and do not see any major issues with your sandbox Politics section. JoyceGW1 (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd added some sources to the statement. I am honestly a little amazed that the article Operation Blue Star does not mention it. The Indian government made a big deal of justifying the reason they attacked on a Sikh holy day. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * do you have any opinion on the edit in the Sandbox? It's been up for two weeks and I'll add it after the lock ends if we have consensus, as no one has voiced any concerns with it yet. Sapedder (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes I noticed you had added the reference, thanks for that. And I do agree that this information should go into all articles related to the incidents. On another note, as you would notice, has pinged you in case there was any feedback on their Sandobox version of the politics section. Thanks, JoyceGW1 (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Some interim edits
Given that the pace of updates to the article has been rather slow and still ongoing, I am going to make a few interim updates to the extremely lopsided lead section of the current article. This basically includes taking out some highly controversial statements to give it a semblance of neutrality. I am specifically going to take out the following, with a few minor additional edits.

Honestly, this needs a lot of discussion, the likes of which are ongoing at the talk page. So put this on hold for now.
 * He symbolized the revivalist, extremist and terrorist movement in Punjab.[4]

This is again POV sourced to an Indian Intelligence author.
 *  In 1983, to escape arrest, ... 


 * Most of the Congress related invective. See ongoing discussion on talk page.

Very simplistic conclusion, overlooking everything else that happened.
 * Bhindranwale died and the temple complex was cleared of militants.

I will change this to extremist for now, pending all the talk page discussion. If anything, this is how the pre-June 2018 version stood.
 * he is widely regarded in India as a terrorist.[16][17][18]

Just seems to have been inserted in the lead to trivialize the subject. Undue in the lead.
 * and held the title of missionary "Sant", a common religious title in Punjab


 * Take out the rediff.com (really?) reference inserted right upfront, just to put Osama and the subject in the same sentence.

JoyceGW1 (talk) 07:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * JoyceGW1, don't remove well-sourced contents without reaching a consensus. What you are trying to do is called whitewashing and it's not accepted here at all. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 08:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * You are now edit warning and I'm requesting for the protection again. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 08:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no whitewashing. As the title of this section says, these are interim edits just to give some semblance of neutrality to the lead section. Once the ongoing discussions progress, the article and the lead will stand updated. JoyceGW1 (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I see that you have now made a fourth revert going against established policy. JoyceGW1 (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

It appears that GSS has reported me for edit warring, even though they are the one who seem to have violated the policy by doing four reverts (An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page is what the policy states). And GSS have also again successfully gotten the page protected to their preferred version. I appeal to the editor who has protected the page to open it back up as there has been a great deal of talk page discussion going on to improve this article. JoyceGW1 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the page is fully protected to prevent edit warring. Reopening it would allow edit warring to continue. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I am not going to do any more reverts as I do not want to violate the policy. So there is no threat of further edit warring from my side and I urge you to reopen the page to let the discussions and edits continue per policy. Another two weeks of protection appears redundant. Thanks JoyceGW1 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The article must stay protected until whatever time is set by Dreamy Jazz. We have an admin involved in the discussion so if there is anything to add before the expiry Abecedare can do that task. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This full protection will allow discussion to take place. Even if you don't revert again, another editor might and the edit war could restart. This protection is aimed at promoting discussion on the talk page between all parties in the edit war instead of just using edit summaries when reverting. Once there is consensus a Edit fully protected edit request can be submitted. Dreamy Jazz</i> talk to me &#124; my contributions 09:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * JoyceGW1, this is why I wanted Abecedare to show up first before proceeding with edits. As I've said before, GSS barely participates in earnest discussion and will never agree to any significant changes in content, but will always show up instantly to revert, so there was no point in making those edits imo. And now he got the article locked again, which serves to delay as long as possible. Slander and lack of civility also appears to be consistent strategies (snarkiness, obstructing overwhelming consensus, accusations of "meatpuppetry," etc.). I did not see the point of editing the lead at this time, but GSS, you can't "whitewash" a POV article that no one ever agreed to. Sapedder (talk) 09:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * JoyceGW1, your edit history clearly show your efforts and the page was projected due to your repeated attempts. You are also trying to confuse all the participants by going with another request when we are already discussing requests by Sapedder above and waiting for Abecedare to reply. @Sapedder the article history has clear evidence who is trying to whitewash. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 09:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding clear evidence: Indeed it does. No discussion on Arya Samaji communalism, or that of sitting MLAs at the time, no discussion on riparian and economic details, or Indira's authoritarianism, but plenty of Congress apologism, along with a whole host of issues. Yes, there is lots of whitewashing in the current article. The article history clearly shows that the POV version that you alone support has no consensus and no merit. Sapedder (talk) 09:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Sapedder, I hear you. It is unfortunate that the page is again protected, but I hope the admins will be open to unprotecting it soon. Let's hope can respond with their feedback at the earliest on (a) The pending Politics/Congress sandbox section; (b) My appeal to use a more neutral version of the lead section till a better consensus version emerges. Best, JoyceGW1 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I get why you wanted to make the interim edits to the lead when you did. I also wanted to be done with the entire process before June when the article traffic picked up, but that will clearly not be possible. I now plan to make the Politics edit soon after the lock ends regardless, as Abecedare may be busy elsewhere and his return isn't certain.
 * As for GSS trying to block you, which almost backfired on him: In my view, he either cannot dispute or will not engage the content additions, so he will resort to such tactics to try to get us to lose our cools and get blocked/banned/etc. This is why I have been patient, and advise others to be, though he is also establishing a pattern of behavior to refer to later if needed, and thus cannot obstruct forever. We will get to the Lead right after Politics (I have a version ready to go of course, perhaps somewhat similar to yours). I'm not sure that launching a parallel debate about the lead right now will be fruitful (the current procedure is slow enough as it is). Sapedder (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes let's try to improve the Politics Section and then work on the Lead. Thanks, JoyceGW1 (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 June 2020
Hello there, Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was a revered saint and freedom fighter. He was never a terrorist as the Indian media wish to have you believe. He stood up to equality, justice and freedom of religion for all. 92.8.30.220 (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 June 2020
Please remove the following “was a militant” and “He symbolized the revivalists,extremist and terrorist movement”

These are false acquisitions and he was not a terrorist he was a religious man. 2A00:23C7:E300:6B00:9565:F4CA:F227:A068 (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Mention is sourced. An argument for removal needs to be based on reliable sources. El_C 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 June 2020
Hi, There are no FIR registered against Bhindran wale hence no proof that he was militant. Kindly get proof and till then kindly REMOVE this word - "Militant"

Secondly, the party - Damdami Taksal, which he was associated is not under the target list of MEA (ministry of external affairs).

If you don't take an action or not respond to my request, then, I'll be forced to take legal action as per Indian Penal Court session.

Regards, Y.S Brara Sr. Advocate, Delhi High Court 2409:4055:2E06:FD42:F65A:785B:B9EC:5748 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)khalsayash@gmail.com
 * ❌. Mention is sourced. An argument for removal needs to be based on reliable sources. El_C 05:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)