Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 7

Protected edit request on 12 June 2020
Not a terrorist. Educate yourself through documents that are written from people besides white colonial imperialists and Indian government who both assisted in the sikh genocide. #1984. 2001:569:7268:1F00:E914:9F64:CAA7:7B9E (talk) 19:17, 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
He was not involved in any terroristic activities but truly and only fought for the rights of a commoner. We asked for justice for the injustice brought to the innocents. 106.204.228.142 (talk) 19:30, 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
He is not terorist. He is sant and very good person. He saved many peoples and he fight for the justice for the sikhs. Indian government has filed false accusations about him. Indian government kills thousands of innocent people and they black out all of this from world 223.225.132.46 (talk) 19:37, 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 13 June 2020
change He symbolized the revivalist, extremist and terrorist movement in Punjab to He symbolized the revivalist movement in Punjab 2607:FEA8:A460:2AB:6936:28F2:4EDE:8D8A (talk) 05:14, 13 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)

False Accusation of Terrorism
False Accusation of Terrorism

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 was not even on wanted list of any Indian agency. He is remembered by Sikhs as Martyr. There is no ruling, judgement of any court that mentioned Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as Terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurjit mehroke (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Please review reference 16 (per current numbering) in the article. In particular, note the pulled quote from The Economist: "FOR most Indians, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was a terrorist. But to Sikhs he was a powerful leader who led a violent campaign for an independent state called Khalistan." It's descriptions in reliable independent sources, such as that one, that we use to support the label of "terrorist". —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * If you read The Economist, it's specifically pointing out the nuances of WP:POV. I do not think it's appropriate to label Bhindranwale a terrorist in the voice of Wikipedia (much as it wouldn't be appropriate to label him a saint), but it's notable and worth mentioning that various groups view him as a terrorist or saint. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

“Unaddressed Problems” It must be noted as under- 1. The article claims that he took Shelter in Harmandir Sahib to evade arrest and cites Mr. KPS Gill’s book for the same. However it is not shown which summon, notice, or warrant had he not been served, or not complied to, by him. Mere opinion of Mr. Gill, which is not referenced by supporting legal documents, does not make him a criminal or a terrorist, and Wikipedia describing him as such is prejudicial.

2. No mention is made of a 2017 Right to Information Act 2005 request, serviced by the Police Commissionerate of Amritsar, which mentions that he was not wanted by the police under any law until the day he was killed. The same RTI further goes on to say that no information was available with the police in its records that dubbed him a criminal, terrorist or other. Previous attempts to include this RTI have been interfered by users like DBigXray, who maintains an overwhelming and emotional attachment to this page and reinforcing a particular version. It is quite funny how an official, legal response, admissible in evidence in courts of law in India, is glossed over ‘editorialised opinions’ of select journalists.

3. No mention is made of the fact that the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty of all persons irrespective of citizenship in its article 21, and this freedom can only be taken away by procedure established by law (Article 13). Jarnail Singh was killed in the operation without a judicial verdict that convicted him of the crimes claimed by the then government in power. His killing, has not been shown to have been sanctioned by law, and if so under which statutory provision.It remains a prejudicial and extra judicial killing, with the burden lying on the executive authority ordering it to prove it to be otherwise. Especially when he continued to be an Indian citizen and subject.

4. While Osama Bin Laden was declared a terrorist by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council, No such declaration was made by the UNSC, Government of India or the Government of Punjab with respect to Bhindranwale. Inspite of this, it is difficult to find the word terrorist on the Wikipedia article on Bin Laden, yet the Editors chose to label him as a terrorist in the opening paragraph of this article, especially in the absence of any official document purporting to do the same, while legal documents as mentioned earlier that explicitly refuse to identify him as a terrorist or criminal are available. Perhaps the editors have stretched editorialised opinion beyond reasonable limits.

5. It is still unsubstantiated what Bhindranwale was hiding from. No specifics are mentioned about which crime he had done that required he hid from the law and the courts. No charge sheets, First information Reports, and convictions secured against him are mentioned.

6. He is accused to have been involved in the unfortunate murder of DIG AS Atwal in 1983, however this accusation has failed to graduate to a conviction. Thus any claims of the ‘necessity’ of the Army attack in 1984 linking a series of events from the above mentioned murder, remains prejudicial, and the crimes so alleged to have been committed by him exist as mere accusations. This is in violation to established legal principles of “innocent until proven guilty”.

7. This article fails to mention any concrete ideology that would dub him an extremist. No ideological commitment to a hatred of non Sikhs has been established against him, yet the article has overtones suggesting the same. No schools of thought, hermeneutics or interpretation of Sikhism has been mentioned that could be dubbed ‘extremist’.

8. The words ‘evading arrest’ or escaping arrest are unsubstantiated and problematic. A person can only be considered to evade arrest when he is wanted in a crime by a law enforcement agency. It has not been established which charge, FIR, or complaint was he ‘wanted’ in. And thus if someone is not ‘wanted’ by the law, how can his presence at a particular place amount to ‘evasion of arrest’, especially when no warrants are pending against him, and no court of law had sought his presence. Even so, if it is to believed that he was ‘evading arrest’, in the very least, one can expect him to be on the Proclaimed Offender register of the police, where his name does not surface. This usage of ‘escaping arrest’ throughout the article again is sourced from newspapers and editorialised opinions, and not from formal and legal sources, which remain absent. Editorialised accusations don’t graduate into Legal Accusations, yet over enthusiastic dependence on these ‘opinions’ is writ large in this article, especially after it being ‘taken over’ by the user DBigXray and perhaps those with similar ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4055:30A:E110:3457:1B8C:2463:D1CE (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhindranwale was not a separatist that movement was started after him he never asked for a separate country he only asked for Sikhism to be officially recognised in the Indian government and to recognise Punjabi to be an official language. Those were his demands to the government but the things he did on the ground are what matters. Sikh have been oppressed in India and in Punjab (which is there homeland) they defended their people. He still has never been convicted of any crime of terrorism yet he is said to be one. You also need to see what information was being let out at the time of “Operation blue star “ the press was not let into Punjab every bit of info from that event was all propaganda. They purposely showed videos of the actual Harmandir sahib (the golden temple itself) in perfect condition to trick people that they respected the holy site and didn’t cause any damage. They also showed videos of Sikh soldiers more often then other soldiers to show that it was a minority of “extremists” even though it was not at all a minority. Using information from an event known for being censored is obsoletely insane listen to the victim and the dozens of interviews on what people really think not the propaganda you were fed. Njudge (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Bhindrawala was a true leader of Sikh who Talked about promises indian govt. made with sikhs at 1947 sepration of india pakistan. Because of this he was labelled as terrorist and assassinated and silent all sikhs that they can never ever talk about their rights again. Snghny (talk) 09:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable Source: Knights of Falsehood by K.P.S. Gill
I'd like to propose that this source, and any claims that are made with its backing, be removed from this article. I invite everyone to read the original book and see how many serious claims the author makes about events he was not present to witness with absolutely no attempt to provide a source. Furthermore, the author himself is a controversial figure who is known to have had a major stake as a leader in this conflict. This brings into question his neutrality and integrity as a historical source.

As an earlier topic suggested that sources written by the SGPC (another player in this conflict) should not be used, I ask that the same standards be applied to any writings of K.P.S. Gill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalicoMo (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2020
Sant Ji was a faithful and brave Sikh who helped people in need and protected anyone, no matter their culture. Indira Gandhi wanted him gone because he did the right thing and she destroyed Sikh shrines and tried to get rid of sikhs 2601:642:4700:E180:90D7:6261:5F10:FEF (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The characterization of Bhindranwale in the article is consistent with reporting in reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020
{{edit semi-protected|Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale|answered=yes} JARNAIL SINGH BHINDRANWALE WAS NOT A MILITANT.HE DEMANDED FOR THE RIGHTS OF SIKHISM (ANANDPUR RESOLUTION).PLEASE REMOVE MILITANT.INSTEAD HE WAS A SAINT WHO PUT THE PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT PATH.THE PEOPLE ALSO LEAVE USAGE OF DRUGS DRINKING ALCOHOL etc. ON HIS SAYING. PLEASE DO CORRECT THIS MISTAKE. 117.234.135.29 (talk) 09:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Seagull123  Φ  10:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

No Legal Conviction/Official designation as terrorist.
It must be noted as under- 1. The article claims that he took Shelter in Harmandir Sahib to evade arrest and cites Mr. KPS Gill’s book for the same. However it is not shown which summon, notice, or warrant had he not been served, or not complied to, by him. Mere opinion of Mr. Gill, which is not referenced by supporting legal documents, does not make him a criminal or a terrorist, and Wikipedia describing him as such is prejudicial.

2. No mention is made of a 2017 Right to Information Act 2005 request, serviced by the Police Commissionerate of Amritsar, which mentions that he was not wanted by the police under any law until the day he was killed. The same RTI further goes on to say that no information was available with the police in its records that dubbed him a criminal, terrorist or other. Previous attempts to include this RTI have been interfered by users like DBigXray, who maintains an overwhelming and emotional attachment to this page and reinforcing a particular version. It is quite funny how an official, legal response, admissible in evidence in courts of law in India, is glossed over ‘editorialised opinions’ of select journalists.

3. No mention is made of the fact that the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty of all persons irrespective of citizenship in its article 21, and this freedom can only be taken away by procedure established by law (Article 13). Jarnail Singh was killed in the operation without a judicial verdict that convicted him of the crimes claimed by the then government in power. His killing, has not been shown to have been sanctioned by law, and if so under which statutory provision.It remains a prejudicial and extra judicial killing, with the burden lying on the executive authority ordering it to prove it to be otherwise. Especially when he continued to be an Indian citizen and subject.

4. While Osama Bin Laden was declared a terrorist by a resolution of the United Nations Security Council, No such declaration was made by the UNSC, Government of India or the Government of Punjab with respect to Bhindranwale. Inspite of this, it is difficult to find the word terrorist on the Wikipedia article on Bin Laden, yet the Editors chose to label him as a terrorist in the opening paragraph of this article, especially in the absence of any official document purporting to do the same, while legal documents as mentioned earlier that explicitly refuse to identify him as a terrorist or criminal are available. Perhaps the editors have stretched editorialised opinion beyond reasonable limits.

5. It is still unsubstantiated what Bhindranwale was hiding from. No specifics are mentioned about which crime he had done that required he hid from the law and the courts. No charge sheets, First information Reports, and convictions secured against him are mentioned.

6. He is accused to have been involved in the unfortunate murder of DIG AS Atwal in 1983, however this accusation has failed to graduate to a conviction. Thus any claims of the ‘necessity’ of the Army attack in 1984 linking a series of events from the above mentioned murder, remains prejudicial, and the crimes so alleged to have been committed by him exist as mere accusations. This is in violation to established legal principles of “innocent until proven guilty”.

7. This article fails to mention any concrete ideology that would dub him an extremist. No ideological commitment to a hatred of non Sikhs has been established against him, yet the article has overtones suggesting the same. No schools of thought, hermeneutics or interpretation of Sikhism has been mentioned that could be dubbed ‘extremist’.

8. The words ‘evading arrest’ or escaping arrest are unsubstantiated and problematic. A person can only be considered to evade arrest when he is wanted in a crime by a law enforcement agency. It has not been established which charge, FIR, or complaint was he ‘wanted’ in. And thus if someone is not ‘wanted’ by the law, how can his presence at a particular place amount to ‘evasion of arrest’, especially when no warrants are pending against him, and no court of law had sought his presence. Even so, if it is to believed that he was ‘evading arrest’, in the very least, one can expect him to be on the Proclaimed Offender register of the police, where his name does not surface. This usage of ‘escaping arrest’ throughout the article again is sourced from newspapers and editorialised opinions, and not from formal and legal sources, which remain absent. Editorialised accusations don’t graduate into Legal Accusations, yet over enthusiastic dependence on these ‘opinions’ is writ large in this article, especially after it being ‘taken over’ by (Personal attack removed). Unlikewater (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems this page has been taken over by (Personal attack removed). Unlikewater (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

False accusation of Terrorism.
He was not a terrorist, not asking for khalistan but anandpur sahib resolution. Can this please be revised? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:3289:5B00:3DB9:7043:B1AF:1854 (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The text in the article represents the source accurately: he was a symbol of the revival, extremist, and terrorist movement. —C.Fred (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought Þjarkur had just elucidated what the problem is with such an unqualified, unbalanced statement in the lead, along with hoards of other users. This isn't encyclopedic language in the slightest. Plus, it's duplicated in the lead for no reason, it's already in the body and was likely duplicated in the lead to influence Google views. There should be a hint of neutrality in the opening statements of the lead of all places. And symbolized to who? The statement needs context and can't just be plucked from the source, as Þjarkur mentioned, and on its own just begs the question. Sapedder (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sapedder: Yes, Þjarkur did that in the section above. The difference is that they proposed a specific change to a specific section of the article and gave specific rationales, including sources for the change and that they felt it's undue weight to mention terrorism in the introduction. Compare that to the IP who just said that he wasn't a terrorist, so change the article—there are sources in the article that link him to terrorist movements. Þjarkur gives us something clear to discuss, and in a small enough chunk that it's easy to focus on. That's why I think discussion sections like that are the way forward in revising the article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly the method Abecedare set forth (section-by-section edits) that we all agreed to, so we have no differences there, we are already in absolute agreement. For example, I've had a version of the Politics section (the section we agreed to edit first, the lead comes next) posted in my Sandbox for over 3 months now, since May (at the request of the lone editor who stonewalled, who then did not comment or engage further on it, despite being solicited to. It is meant to replace sections 3 and 3.1. So since two other editors also expressed support for the sandbox version and none have bothered to raise objections in all that time, it can be posted, right?)
 * As for the IP, not everyone who shows up on the user talk can be conflated to be part of the prior or current discussion. The central discussion only involved Abecedare, who oversaw things and helped with my edits; myself, JoyceGW1, Elephanthunter, and Harmanprtjhj, who all were in favor of edits; and GSS, who alone stonewalled. This was unfortunately the time Abecedare began a hiatus, so we agreed to put everything on hold until he came back so it wouldn't devolve into endless edit wars, but it's been a while, hence why I asked other admins if you would ensure the process to go forward smoothly while he's gone. Other IPs barging in isn't really a factor here. (Arguably they would be helping more if instead of cluttering up the talk page, they read through and added to the existing discussion. They do help in illustrating the strong general sentiment towards amending the page though, as it was indeed almost entirely (poorly) written by a single user in July 2018 without collaboration, oversight, or consensus.) Sapedder (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also: for the sake of immediate relevance to this particular discussion, I also just added my version of the Lead as well to the sandbox, for everyone's consideration., I understand from your interim proposal that you did not like the "Rediff" source (I agree that it's low-tier, but I left it in for now), had concerns about the phrase "evade arrest" being linked to a state intel officer (maybe in-line attribution is advisable, or even removal?), and had other thoughts, so feel free to share them. Sapedder (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sapedder: You've had a proposed change in your sandbox. There was nothing in this talk page that clearly indicated it was there. And that's my concern: a version that is agreed to off this page by a few editors may be opposed by other editors who were not aware it was under discussion.
 * If you really feel it will clutter this page to have the discussion here, let's create Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Major edits and discuss there—but let's also have a banner here alerting people to what's going on there. —C.Fred (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time there was only one user opposing the edits (that doesn't appear to have changed, afaik), I believe I did notify him of the sandbox version, as well as the supporters, on 24 May, further up this page. Posting my edits in my sandbox was in fact his idea (20 May), so I obliged him. He then did not comment further on it.
 * The clutter thing was just in regards to the many sections of IPs and new users demanding vague changes (many of the protected edit requests, etc.). We can have the discussion anywhere, including here, though I see JoyceGW1 went ahead and created the special discussion page, so we can discuss there. I'm fine with putting up a banner. Sapedder (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

I like C.Fred's idea of creating another talk page for discussion, so to get the ball rolling again I have taken the liberty to create it and populated it with the proposals for Lead and Politics Section from 's sandbox. I am going to add my comments there. , and others interested, please review those Sections and add your comments, I am hoping we can move pretty swiftly now given the momentum.JoyceGW1 (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2020
The term "terrorist" to describe Sant Jarnail Singh shouldn't be used as it is untrue and should be referred as a "freedom fighter." Shivaharma2323 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The article uses the term "militant". --RegentsPark (comment) 12:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk page for focused discussion
Per admin C. Fred's advice, a talk page has been created for more focused discussion and faster progress on the article update

Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Major edits

I am not certain how to create a banner that you suggested but I thought I would at least highlight it this way.

JoyceGW1 (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for going ahead and doing that. Also not sure about the banner, could you help with that? Sapedder (talk) 09:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have added this banner to the top of the article:


 * —C.Fred (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have also added an editnotice. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So now I assume we leave the special page open for a period, so others can opine and discuss, before taking further actions. Provided activity indicates general agreement after a time, what post-consensus timeframe would be appropriate to implement the edits afterward, if there is one? In other words, what do we do next, and when? Sapedder (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sapedder: It's a discussion, like any other on Wikipedia. Propose changes, see what feedback comes in, reach a consensus. Rule of thumb for a formal discussion is 7–10 days to allow parties a chance to see the proposal and respond. —C.Fred (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, that was about the time period I was guessing. Sapedder (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for setting up the framework, it looks like there has been some success with it already, courtesy of JoyceGW1. As advised, we will repeat the 7-to-10-day cycles for other sections and open them for discussion in turns. Sapedder (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for implementing the edits, I hadn't even realized that you had gone ahead and done that (I was willing to wait a few extra days for good measure, and was preparing to make the edits now). Good to see that it hasn't triggered any nonsense as of yet, and that your boldness paid off. For the next section, unless you have a suggestion, I was thinking to put up my "Damdami Taksal" version in the major edits talk section. Let's keep it going! Thanks again, Sapedder (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new intro
This intro is honestly not good and should not reflect opinion pieces in Wikipedia's voice. In cases like this were there are competing viewpoints, I want to suggest that our intro reflect a tertiary source such as Britannica. I'll note that currently we cite "militant" to a partisan opinion piece and that "symbolized..." sounds more strongly worded when mentioned seperately out of the context of the relevant page of Martha Crenshaw's text. Another thing is that the current intro does not give sufficient context for readers unfamiliar with the subject. With the assumption that we mostly agree about Britannica's non-partisanship about this issue, how about this as an intro:

– Thjarkur (talk) 10:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the lead of the article is just the tip of the iceberg, believe me. The whole article needs a rewrite, which was agreed to by four editors plus an admin, and is in progress (it's been on hold since the admin helping us seems to be on a hiatus, during which we informally agreed to hold off on edits pending his return). I put up those templates in the meantime, which may seem redundant, but which I believe add different nuances that were each substantiated during the (very long) discussions ("Politics" discussion above, and "Comment on recent edit war" in Archive 5).
 * Anyway, regarding the lead, we agreed to discuss and edit the article section-by-section, and actually haven't reached the lead yet. While I think your version is certainly a massive improvement, I do have my own version of the lead ready to go, so if you're interested I can post it in my Sandbox and link it for you to check out. Pinging, he also has his own version and may want to share details. Sapedder (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sapedder: I don't see any discussion on this talk page about a major rewrite. Where is this discussion, so I can see why we're holding on an improvement to the introduction, which will get things started and resolve one of the major perennial complaints? —C.Fred (talk) 23:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's basically the entirety of Archive 5, along with the "Politics (Congress)" section above and the two sections following that. The total discussion has been very long and involved, but to sum it up, four users (including myself) along with an admin (Abecedare) agreed to a rewrite process (with one user opposing). The process was underway until predictably the one user began reverting and stonewalling everything and it wasn't getting anywhere, so me and the other user agreed to get Abecedare's input before proceeding further, which was like 2 months ago now, as he appears to be on a break from Wiki. So the process has been on hold, during which I put up the templates. Sapedder (talk) 01:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I agree with that your proposal is a massive improvement over what exists as of now. However I do believe it would still stir up debate on a thing or two, such as "to escape arrest" part, and also might be a bit too abridged. For some context, here I had listed what I felt were the problematic parts in the existing Lead.

Proposal for way forward:
 * Article: I believe it has already been about two-three months since Sapedder posted their proposed text for the Politics Section. There have been no objections raised and I do not know if anyone else is planning to still review that text even if we were to hold off for another few days. So I am guessing that Section can be updated now. I am not sure if Sapedder was planning to update any other Sections too ? We could alternatively continue to wait for input from the admin Abecedare while the templates stay up.
 * Lead: We seem to have a few different proposals. I suggest Sapedder share their sandbox version as well. From there, we first decide whether we want an abridged version (on lines of Þjarkur's proposal) or still keep a reasonably descriptive version. Once that is decided, then we hash out the final text.

Per 's comment, I concur that the Lead could be updated to an agreeable interim version right now while updates to the remainder of the article go on. Cheers, JoyceGW1 (talk) 07:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

This might be a long shot, but as both of you moderate this talk page often and know of the issues many users have taken with the article, would either, or both, of you be open to taking over the reins and overseeing the process laid out by Abecedare, while he is gone? Assuming you've read through the discussions, know what's going on, and of course are inclined to take part. An incentive might be that this talk page would probably stop being so busy all the time. Sapedder (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @Sapedder: If there are going to be major changes to the article, there should be discussion on this page about them! —C.Fred (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * @: But there has been, I just mentioned all the discussion listing all the problems with the article. Abecedare's help, or any such guiding admin, was essential because GSS alone just endlessly stonewalls all changes without it and with no explanation, as opposed to several editors who support the changes. Sapedder (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for bringing attention to the intro. A new version has been implemented after some further discussion below, and hopefully you will find it both more informative and more encyclopedia-worthy. Sapedder (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2020
The spouse information is wrong i dont know the the spouse but bibi pritam kaur was not his wife she was saheed bhai rashpal singh g's wife. Akaalll (talk) 07:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 10:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding deleting corrected information
It was stated in the edit that Jarnail Singh was a militant who carried out anti-India activities. The Indian government had also declared him a terrorist but in this article, there is no mention of being a terrorist. If done, then that edit is removed. Of course it is a violation of wikipedia rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki97828 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, mention of some Balbharti book in Maharashtra or a low quality Sudhir Chaudhary/Zee news video from couple of days ago are very poor sources. High quality scholarly sources work best, and even with those, it requires very detailed discussions and consensus building regarding such highly controversial claims. Check out the talk page archives here over the last year or so. JoyceGW1 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021
From what source is Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale linked to the Khalistan movement? This is highly disputed and a radical, controversial opinionated view. Tsr001 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

}} Tsr001 (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (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. 54nd60x (talk) 13:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2021
This page is being edited by pro khalistanis and we want to make sufficient changes in this article as they are showing him as a Legend rather than a militant or terrorist.It is hurting our feelings about those whome he had killed. 103.41.38.242 (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

He was a legend for many he helped many families with their social and economic problems, he was well known for his campaign against drugs in punjab which helped punjabi youth alot it was not like he was a terrorist from birth like India shows him. Tommy Vercetti 18963 (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Neither a Sepratist nor a Militant
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was neither a sepratist nor a militant he was relegious leader and did not cause the 1984 attacks. The attack had been planned in 1982 and were ready to attack but didnot as they didnt get the approval by Britain or Soviet Russia so we cant blame Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale.

Please add this edit as misleads people to call a specific relegions as militants so thank you }} Aleksandr Amedeus Volkov (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Save my changes pls Aleksandr Amedeus Volkov (talk) 16:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Bhai Amrik Singh & Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale.jpg

Removal of "media section" within article
Section was incredibly long and drawn out, quite obviously soapboxing, filled with junk and contradictory sources, included irrelevant and quite frankly blatant agenda pushing, and most of it was Bhindrawale's quotes on the media and his views on them, rather than an actual examination or observation of media coverage through unbiased lens backed up with solid citations. Either the section needs to be redone or discarded. I welcome admins and the larger wikipedia community to look into this, if need be. Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) Edit: Section redone with original quotes by Bhindranwale retained, irrelevant details removed Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have this page under my watch list, so was concerned with the removal of section "Media Coverage". But I do see now that you are trying to revamp the section by readding some of the information that was taken out and this is fine. Portion not included will need to be revised. But I would say that you should consult before removing such vast amount of information and sources by posting a message on talk page about what you would like to do so that editors have no objection in the removal of their edits. Also if there is any doubt with sources, you can always use WP:RS and get a consensus on its reliability before removing them. User:Sapedder, your opinion matters since you have been a part of the major contribution to this article. MehmoodS (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Reliability is only half the issue, even apparently reliable sources don't mention what the article is claiming or actually contradict it. The article is inundated with very obvious soapboxing and irrelevant detail, the article in general looks it should be trimmed down quite a bit.

User:Sapedder, I dont know he full extent of your contributions, but it appears that a significant percentage of what you have added to the article is soapboxing, irrelevant, and improperly sourced. Could you explain? Also consider trimming the article because it is MUCH too long Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The form of the article was the result of extensive discussion and collaboration between over half a dozen editors over the course of about a year, including 2 admins.
 * Re:Crenshaw, this violates WP:LABEL as well as arguably WP:WEASEL, as it does not state to whom he "symbolized," and remains vague, contentious, and needlessly aspersive (such labels as "hero" or "terrorist" are to be avoided by encyclopedias. The reader is to decide this, not the article). It also remains without in-line attribution, which would be undue anyway. In general, it has little encyclopedic value.
 * You seem to have drawn some unwarranted conclusions of your own regarding the Sant Nirankari clash, as the Khalsa always carries "traditional" arms as part of the religion. In any case, no eyewitness places Fauja as taking the first action, some even place him away at the complex's auditorium when the Nirankaris first arrived. Also regarding the bus passengers, your claim that it was "JSB/Babbar Khalsa" is as of yet untenable OR. It cannot be both, as the Babbar Khalsa opposed JSB since the Sant Nirankari clash. Besides, this accusation remains unsubstantiated rumor-mongering (not "implicated"). You also disposed of several news articles and relevant interviews as "junk," while also nixing scholarly sources like Pettigrew (the usability of which have been confirmed), based on personal judgements. The only commonality is perhaps that you simply don't like them, which is not acceptable. Personally, I may not like sources that completely toe the government line (of which there are several), but I can't just delete them, only try to balance.
 * re: the Media section, some of it predates my involvement with this article. I do agree with a portion of your trimming here, and I do agree that the para about class tensions was in the wrong section, so I moved it. But if you have concerns over specific statements, they should be tagged first. Btw, if you have trouble accessing sources to check them, you should tag them, not delete them, as I noticed you also did in the Operation Woodrose page. Both this and that were "I don't like it" at best and vandalism at worst.
 * As for the article length, this is a controversial topic that needs extensive detail; there are many longer articles and shouldn't be a bar. Sapedder (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

First of all User:Sapedder, how can you claim that it was a a peaceful protest, when THE SOURCE YOU PROVIDED (Sikhs of Punjab page 216) doesn't mention it was a peaceful protest. Where are you getting peaceful protest from that source? I've seen this tactic many times where people just write whatever they want and source randomly to justify it. You seem to be completely missing the point of WP:RS, you've randomly included sources such as "The Sant's Son" which is very obviously an opinon article piece, and the Pettigrew one clearly stated that the paper didn't have a wide set of emperical data and the only reason she wrote the paper was to restore JSB's image in the author's note at the end of the paper. Clearly violating WP:RS, and WP:Neutrality, I'm more than happy in getting the admins involved to make a decision on this. Moreover, you are very, very clearly violating WP:NOTSOAPBOX, by adding thinly veiled whitewashing and you've made some disgusting (quite frankly) conspiracy level claims that the 1983 Dhilwan bus massacre was a government operation, when the vast majority of sources seem to implicate either Bhindranwale or Babbar Khalsa in this, You've also made thinly vieled provocations against Nirankaris, who consider themselves as Sikhs, and you've tried to thinly viel attacks against them as matter of fact statements rather than accusations. It's clear that you've turned this page into your propaganda piece. Again I'm more than happy to bring wikipedia admins to make a decision on certain issues on this page Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC) Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the 1983 dhilwan bus massacre, your claim/implication that it was a conspiracy by the government (which is incredibly disrespectful to the victims, and not corrobated by any other mainstream academic sources) is sourced from the SGPC. Really? The SGPC which is a zealot religious organization that manages Sikh assets and property. Please tell me how this doesn't violate WP:Neutrality? Especially when hundreds of sources within the article all mention Babbar Khalsa and JSB's group comitting violence against Hindus, Nirankaris and moderate Sikhs Very clearly soapboxing from you Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

See inline citations/templates Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


 * User:Suthasianhistorian8: You've misread and mischaracterized on several counts yet again. "Peaceful" is not from Grewal (who "ostracized" statement I see you've deleted) but from Pettigrew p. 11 (the sentence that starts with "that concern was restricted to....") Regarding Pettigrew, the paper was not written to restore "restore JSB's image" but to "restore some balance" to the subject, this was from a period immediately following the militancy (context matters here), during which many writings secondhandedly repeating the Congress/government line without utilizing or compiling their own "empirical databases" (which is true for most of the sources you've added). They don't seem to have done any of their own field work or translations, unlike Pettigrew and people on the ground, or unlike first-hand interviews like that of Gupta, which you have tagged for the mere fact that you, again, simply don't like them (same with the "Sant's son" source which predated my involvement with the article). You've simply seized upon and twisted Pettigrew's obligatory scholarly disclosures, when all that and more can be applied more convincingly to your own source additions (many of which are dated and written in service of Indira/Congress in the midst of the turmoils like Tully, etc. or draw uncritically from writings from that time like Malik, etc, which arguably make them inherently unreliable. Many of their simplistic conclusions have since come under much mainstream scrutiny).
 * Your repeated personal opinion of the SGPC as "zealots" is not relevant here. In any case the source is overwhelmingly used only as a complement with other sources, and sparingly as a proportion of citations on its own (a point would be that SGPC were partisans to the events of the period, but so were Congress and the govt, which many sources here write on behalf of, in addition to the government's own White Paper, hence satisfying neutrality, getting balance from both sides). The SGPC's roots goes back long before these events, and whatever the case are accepted as the mainstream governing body of Sikh institutions. You can have opinions on their governance, but they don't belong here as justifications.
 * Much of the page was implemented by me, but only after extensive multilateral discussion and input over the course of over a year, so I have not turned it into "my" page. My deletion was limited to one statement/source for the aforementioned reasons (unencyclopedic), yours were over 13k bytes of unilateral deletion. This, conversely, is not your page either, nor was it the page of users before me who also exerted unilateral ownership, so your self-righteousness might backfire.
 * Regarding Dhilwan, it is not "my" claim, but simply noting an Akali claim (in this case Longowal's). Nowhere did I claim this to be the absolute case, so please stop sensationalizing. "Bhindranwale or Babbar Khalsa" are again two very divergent allegations (regardless of your attempts to conflate them), which have not been solidified legally beyond vain attempts to pin them on the highest-profile entity of the week at that time, which was common practice. Such incidents of the period were highly decentralized (despite attempts to unify them under one umbrella, which is far from reality), and multiple entities took advantage of the chaos. I could expand even more on that, but you'd call that "soapboxing," as keeping out such discussion serves your linear view of things.
 * Speaking of conflating, you don't seem to be aware of the difference between the Nirankaris and Sant Nirankaris, a recent breakaway group from the former founded in 1929. The Nirankaris consider themselves Sikhs and are considered Sikhs, but the Sant Nirankaris (the sect relevant here) consider themselves "post-religious," with their own scripture (though this is a separate topic in itself). It's good to know things before offering your take on them.
 * All this is just from a quick glean of your take, I could go on, more time later. Sapedder (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Sapedder While I do agree with you that official government sources should generally be avoided or used sparingly, the same goes for sikh governing bodies like akal takht and sgpc, or at the very least their claims should be corroborated with a few other academic, unbiased. neutral sources. The issue I have with the paragraph under "Media Section": "Regarding incidents of bus passengers shooting in the state in October 1983 and other crimes, the discovery of discarded turbans, pistols, and cartridges found at certain crime scenes prompted open Akali allegations that killings were being done by professionals under the orders of the Third Agency," Firstly I read the source you provided, which stated that S.S Dharam believed that the Dhilwan bus massacre was committed by the Third Agency, in order to justify the imposition of President's Rule that followed shortly after. It did not mention discarded turbans, pistols, and cartridges so I'm not sure where you're getting that from, perhaps you could point to the mention of that. I also fail to see how discarded pistols or cartridges would even implicate a government agency in those crimes. However, such a bold statement that the 83 bus massacre were committed possibly by the government (though I do not agree with their actions during the 1980's regarding Blue Star and the events that followed though that's besides the point) needs to be corroborated through better academic sources Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been busy this week, but I have another reputable source discussing Dhilwan and am currently reading through it. As for sgpc, their already marginal solo role in the article with continue to be corroborated/decreased over time as a result. I will discuss more in a few days. Sapedder (talk) 08:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay Suthasianhistorian8 (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A few notes to keep in mind upon your return from your second block:
 * Malik makes only perfunctory, uncritical mention of JSB, and manages to fill even that one sentence with several flagrant inconsistencies in relation to better, newer, in-depth sources. It presents unverified claims as fact, further compromising its value. As for this dubious quote fragment, nowhere can it be corroborated, whether by written or spoken material, that he referred to any individual, group, or community with this phrase, which is curiously distinct British English. It has about as much credibility as Guha's did, who also distorted a thirdhand quote to assert that JSB told people to hit peoples' heads with TV antennas, which was as nonsensical as it was mendacious. This is what happens when one cannot directly ascertain for oneself what is being said, unlike the direct interviews and field work that actual researchers did. It is not firsthand interviews like Gupta that are "dubious," but tertiary sources uncritically peddling canards without real research worth more than a sentence. On top of that, he offers no "empirical database," as you would say. Hence, tagged.
 * Here is discussion of Dhilwan from DGP Dhillon. "Mass killing" is actual editorializing, the very reason you know of Dhilwan is precisely because it was so unusual (a cluster of events limited mostly to oct/nov). When even a DGP raises points about it, it shouldn't be met with self-righteous indignance, and unilateral attribution is absolutely now allowed. Btw, phrases like "symbolized" and "is often held responsible" are also peak WP:WEASEL words and are not acceptable, that too without attribution.
 * In terms of "systematic," even the most pro-govt sources clearly show that even their inflated stats barely hit triple digits from 1981 to June 1984. Alleged responsibility for them (which include a handful of assassinations and random incidents) would also have to be split between several opposing factions, vendettas, common criminals, false attributions, govt maneuvers, etc. per multiple sources. And of course this count doesn't include the 200+ Sikhs killed during the protest or by govt-backed street activists like the HSS, Aryas, or Bhajan Lal's mobs over the 82-84 period.
 * Jain (1995) presents the govt stats of Hindu casualties ascribed over 4 years thusly: 10 in 1981, 8 in 1982, 35 in 1983 (including allegations), ~30 by mid 1984. Add in the 35 Sant Nirankaris claimed by the Babbar Khalsa by that point and the 3+5+40 Sikh cases, and you arrive approximately at Tully/Jacob's estimate of 165 over the period (again, being generous). High-volume, spread over 4 years? Such subjective sensationalism doesn't wash anyway. Sapedder (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Casualties?
It says hundreds of thousands of people were killed during during operation blue star which is complete lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.60.235 (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not militant
Fellow member of sant jarnail singh bhindrawale are not militants, they all are revolutionaries. They fought for the. Peoples of state and community whereas at that time rulling government was the real threat for everyone. 2402:8100:3959:3169:6D33:A4FB:2947:729D (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Sant Jarnail singh Bhindranwale was not an terriorist they just fought for thier people and their religion to get the rights in india as hindus get Taranmann0 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Birthdate (June 2nd vs February 12th)
The birth date is a distinct content issue, but the recent edit warring appears to flip the birth date and not address it. Please give reasons below as when you believe the birth date should be, and why (providing sources). If sources conflict on the birth date, we should mention that instead of factually presenting the birth date as one date or the other. The last discussion on this topic was slightly over two years ago    --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , the birthdate seems to have been changed by a user on 2 June without explanation and counter to the source. Now it seems to have gotten caught up between recent edits due to a lack of regard for accuracy (which seems to be a theme here). Sapedder (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Further to this point, I have warned for their revert to this article based solely on the change to the date of birth—which indicates such recklessness that I feel the best option is to roll back the entire edit. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The information about "12 February" is sourced to Lulu.com (a depreciated self-published unreliable source) and it relies on a footnote from this unreliable source.
 * The actual reliable sources note his birth date to be 2 June, 1947 such as this reliable source, The Tribune, this scholarly book which was written by scholar Khushwant Singh, and more.
 * This means that "12 February" is the wrong date and "2 June" is the correct date. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of those sources were present in your edit. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I will make this change after some hours by myself. Srijanx22 (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)