Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 8

Lead
@Srijanx22 source [10],[11],[33],[34],[37] all state Bhindranwale was not for Khalistan in the opening description. He was militant in the sense that he was armed and did inspire the Khalistan movement, but claiming he is a Khalistani militant is rather misleading. Chomskywala (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC).


 * I used this source which said: "Bhindranwale was a militant religious leader and the leader of the Khalistani Movement, which demanded secession from the Indian State to form the Sikh state of Khalistan." Do you have a rebuttal instead of your own WP:OR? Srijanx22 (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Do you have a rebuttal instead of your own WP:OR?"
 * I did note there are several sources already provided within the article, I am not providing my own perspective here, note:
 * - [9-11] are from the Hindustan Times published from 1982-1984
 * - [33 ]. The Tribune India: "Bhindranwale never raised the demand for Khalistan or went beyond the Akali Anandpur Sahib Resolution, while he himself was prepared for negotiations to the very end."
 * - [34 ] New York Times: "Mr. Bhindranwale himself said many times that he was not seeking an independent country for Sikhs, merely greater autonomy for Punjab within the Indian Union...There was and is a Khalistan movement whose leaders are in exile in Canada and Britain, but little or no evidence has existed that the idea was taken seriously by many Indian Sikhs... considerable Khalistan sentiment seems to have arisen since the raid on the temple, which many Sikhs, if not most, have taken as a deep offense to their religion and their sensibilities. To illustrate Sikh attitudes, Mr. Singh said a fellow Sikh told him, I don't feel Indian any more.:
 * - [35 ] Deol 2000 p. 170 "Bhindranwale was not an outspoken supporter of Khalistan, although he often emphasized the separate identity of the Sikhs."
 * - [37 ] Puri, Rajinder The Statesman. "The assumption that Bhindranwale was insisting on Khalistan and rigidly denied any compromise is the biggest lie"
 * I think the broader issue is that there are largely two opposing narratives. One states, that Bhindranwale wanted Khalistan. The other states, Bhindranwale, wanted the Anandpur Shaib Resolution and greater autonomy within the Indian state. Now, the former claim was the one used to rationalize Operation Blue Star. However, there is some debate on whether this was a true claim. For example, Christoper Andrews's work on the KGB archives notes the evidence for this claim was based on fabricated intelligence provided by the Soviet Union to Gandhi. The fabricated intelligence stated the CIA, Pakistan and Bhindranwale were going to launch a civil war for the formation of Khalistan [source ] pg. 278. Chomskywala (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think in the interests of preserving a neutral point of view; there should be a caveat on how Bhindranwales death and Blue Star precipitated the Khalistan movement; and the uncertainty around whether he was actively supporting Khalistan and the Anadpur Shaib resolution. But, I do believe stating he was a Khalistani militant implies he was actively fighting a guerrilla war for Khalistan - he was not actively involved in guerilla warfare, with the exception of Blue Star - he was a political actor, preaching in Punjab. Chomskywala (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What seems obvious is that "By 1981, he had become the leading figure of an aggressive movement for a Sikh state" (Khalistan). The lead for long said that he "was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal." We should instead change it to "was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement." Srijanx22 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is a fair description. I think the only potential problem with that description would be readers conflating the Damdami Taksal with the militancy. I think stating he "was a militant, and leader of the Damdami Taksal" may avoid that. After all the Damdami Taksal is a historic Sikh institution and not a Khalistani organization.
 * Also, from the sources I've read, his role in the Khalistan movement requires more nuance then that source has provided. Again, it's unclear weather he was advocating for Khalistan. I have not seen any statements from him which explicitly advocate for Khalistan and the literature that exists appears to be split with some authors claiming he was supporting Khalistan - with Indian intelligence stating this was occurring covertly - and others claiming he was only asking for the Anandpur Sahib Resolution. However, I agree he was a leading figure of the Khalistan movement - and continues to be. I think perhaps stating, "he was an advocate of the Anadpur Shaib Resolution and became a martyr for the Khalistan movement" or "he was an advocate of the Anadpur Sahib and a leading figure of the Khalistan movement..." and then introducing a bit of this debate about the lack of clarity on his personal stance on Khalistan may allow for the nuance to be explained. What do you think? Chomskywala (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Second sentence say "He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[8][9][10][11] gaining national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash." this can be changed to "He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,[8][9][10][11] and leading figure of Khalistan movement, he gained significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash." The word "national attention" is inaccurate because he was already receiving international coverage by 1970s. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

, brought up several points, pretty much all of which you completely disregarded and failed to accomodate during this "consensus."
 * 1) Chomskywala writes "source [10],[11],[33],[34],[37] all state Bhindranwale was not for Khalistan in the opening description. He was militant in the sense that he was armed and did inspire the Khalistan movement, but claiming he is a Khalistani militant is rather misleading." Several sources, mostly firsthand, back this up, and state the opposite of what you added, and you need to stop ignoring this and abide by WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE.
 * 2) Chomskywala writes "I think in the interests of preserving a neutral point of view; there should be a caveat on how Bhindranwales death and Blue Star precipitated the Khalistan movement; and the uncertainty around whether he was actively supporting Khalistan and the Anadpur Shaib resolution." You ignored this.
 * 3) "I think the only potential problem with that description would be readers conflating the Damdami Taksal with the militancy," and proposed a different phrase to not imply that Damdami Taksal itself was not a militant organization. You ignored this.
 * 4) He goes on to state that "there are largely two opposing narratives," asks for nuance mentions "the lack of clarity on his personal stance on Khalistan may allow for the nuance to be explained." You ignored this because you like it.
 * 5) I noticed that Aspinall and most of the other sources stating this are second and thirdhand accounts that only make passing mention of rehashed government views. What happened in 1981 toward the "Khalistan movement"? The Dharam Yudh Morcha political protest (which is still not the "Khalistan movement") didn't even begin until 1982. You cannot give one opinion primacy over the other simply because you like it.
 * 6) You are repeating this phrase twice in two sentences, and spamming the source 2 more times. Why? Your source was already incorporated into the article by Elephanthunter,
 * 7) Again and again, I bring up WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE, etc. as several sources clearly contradict your POV push. You are aware of this, but you keep ignoring it.

Then he seemingly withdrew from the discussion for whatever reason, never actually agreeing. Even if there was explicit consensus (which there isn't, you did not make any of the amendments he suggested), that does not trump multiple policy violations, and anything can be challenged (several editors in fact have). The burden is on you to defend your edit that clearly favors one opinion over the other. Why do you keep breaking NPOV? Pinging, as well. Sapedder (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Find multiple scholarly sources which say that Jarnail was not a militant. You are removing this commonly accepted fact  for years and you are alone with this blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Srijanx22 (talk)  13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me to prove a negative? Don't be ridiculous. The lead already reads that he "grew to be a leader of Sikh militancy" so there goes your strawman up in flames. Sapedder (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Onus is on your to prove how you are right given the unacceptable POV you are pushing. No, we are not going to soften the wording just because you want it. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, so the current tone is not damnatory enough for you. Need I remind you that this is an encyclopedia, its tone is supposed to be dispassionate as possible. So you have no regard for nuance, NPOV, sequence of events, or the fact that it's already in the lead twice, you just want to spice it up with gratuitous repetition that adds nothing. Thanks for admitting what I suspected. lol "we." Sapedder (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED so that makes no sense. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It already exists in the lead as "leader of militancy," so in fact "censored" makes no sense here. It did not exist for "years," only for a few months in 2019, added without consensus when "leader of militancy already existed. It was redundant then, it is redundant now. Sapedder (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not enough. That's sneaky way to get rid of the label that you don't like. It existed for long enough and you have been attempted to get rid of it since 2020. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "It existed for long enough" is not an argument. There's no "grace period" after which any edit is permanent, that's ridiculous, where did you get this notion? "It is not enough" another subjective, meaningless assertion that only confirms that your concern is sensationalism, not facts. It is a confused, factually misleading statement, how can one be a "militant leader" of a non-militant institution? This was raised to you earlier and you dodged it then as well. Of course it was cleanly gotten rid of, no "attempt" needed. There's no argument to counter here, just personal feelings and conspiratorial thinking. Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to have WP:LASTWORD. You won't get to censor the word "militant" per your own illogical convenience. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Last word? I wish. An earnest discussion has never actually started, you never addressed a single point and it's clear you're not going to. "Militant/militancy" have always been there, don't misuse the word "censor" for your "illogical convenience". Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit is largely about on getting rid of the "label" militant. In which universe do you think that the person who was a major militant of Operation Blue Star is not a terrorist? Per WP:TERRORIST we can easily use the term "militant" without any doubt. Now while it is beyond surprising that I have to provide WP:RS to cement the fact that Bhindranwale was a "militant", I think you should still read a few of them:-
 * This is why your false claim that "militant" is a "contentious label" is also nonsensical. Srijanx22 (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Your edit is largely about on getting rid of the "label" militant." WRONG, enough with the strawmanning. The main issue (which you are still trying hard to avoid) is balancing the two narratives, not "militant." The lead already reads that he "grew to be a leader of Sikh militancy." I was the one who saw fit to include that. So you just wasted your own time with all this.
 * Your strategy is clearer than ever: a) cling to an imaginary consensus, somehow believing it to be immutable even if it existed (all content can be challenged, the admins at ANEW have confirmed for you that the challenge is valid, so you had better start defending your edit properly) and b) desperately create new strawmen to avoid addressing WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, which obliterates any basis for your edit in regards to the two narratives you understandably refuse to talk about. Your cheap attempt at ANEW almost backfired on you, so stop dodging and deflecting and discuss your edit in good faith, the ANEW admins have recognized your failure to do so. Sapedder (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? You are the alone with your POV pushing and disruptive editing including spread of disinformation like 12 February for birthdate. Surely I am not the one engaging in any policy violation like that. You have been removing the widely accepted term "militant" since first day so you shouldn't be falsely alleging me of the very things you are doing yourself. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that you have said you have no issue with the word "militant", thus I will be restoring it soon because its a fact that shouldn't be denied. Jarnail being the leader of Khalistani movement was repeated twice so I will be removing the repetition. If you have any proposal to the wording then you need to propose it here, but make sure you are doing it without removing the word "militant". Srijanx22 (talk)
 * "Your edit is largely about on getting rid of the "label" militant." WRONG, enough with the strawmanning. The main issue (which you are still trying hard to avoid) is balancing the two narratives, not "militant." The lead already reads that he "grew to be a leader of Sikh militancy." I was the one who saw fit to include that. So you just wasted your own time with all this.
 * Your strategy is clearer than ever: a) cling to an imaginary consensus, somehow believing it to be immutable even if it existed (all content can be challenged, the admins at ANEW have confirmed for you that the challenge is valid, so you had better start defending your edit properly) and b) desperately create new strawmen to avoid addressing WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE, which obliterates any basis for your edit in regards to the two narratives you understandably refuse to talk about. Your cheap attempt at ANEW almost backfired on you, so stop dodging and deflecting and discuss your edit in good faith, the ANEW admins have recognized your failure to do so. Sapedder (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? You are the alone with your POV pushing and disruptive editing including spread of disinformation like 12 February for birthdate. Surely I am not the one engaging in any policy violation like that. You have been removing the widely accepted term "militant" since first day so you shouldn't be falsely alleging me of the very things you are doing yourself. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that you have said you have no issue with the word "militant", thus I will be restoring it soon because its a fact that shouldn't be denied. Jarnail being the leader of Khalistani movement was repeated twice so I will be removing the repetition. If you have any proposal to the wording then you need to propose it here, but make sure you are doing it without removing the word "militant". Srijanx22 (talk)


 * uh, are you sure? I'm "the alone (sic)"? Want to take that up with the admins and embarrass yourself at ANEW again? And the Amarinder source disagrees with you too lmao, you just destroyed your own case with your own source, what an own-goal.
 * So if you know that the main issue is not "militant," then you also knew that the main issue we've been discussing the whole time is balancing the two views of him supposedly "leading" the Khalistan movement, the several sources clearly stating that he never once demanded it (including your own source), and you ignoring one view to push another you like.
 * But while we're on this new non-issue regarding "militant," the lead has always stated adequately that he "grew to be a leader of Sikh militancy" (thanks to me), so this is redundant anyway. We can incorporate the source tag (which you misnamed and made shoddily anyway), but you can't shoehorn sensationalistic redundancies you like into the very first sentence. You are just duplicating this to slant the page. Like I said your strawman is DOA. But good to see you finally recognized that we can't have repetitions, it's a start.
 * Like Chomskywala pointed out to you, but of course in typical fashion you ignored, "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" makes it sound like a) the Damdami Taksal is a militant organization, and b) he started out as a militant. "He grew to be a leader of Sikh militancy" conveys needed nuance (that Chomskywala requested, perhaps not forcefully enough) and already covers it. You STILL haven't touched the WP:BALANCE issue that Chomskywala spent considerable time explaining to you (which everyone can see, including the admins who rejected your frivolous report and called out your own lack of good-faith engagement). But now you can no longer feign ignorance. Sapedder (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wasn't pointed out of a single policy violation at ANEW, though everyone unequivocally agreed that you are edit warring. I am not going to waste time with your banter since you are being disingenuous with your own claims.
 * I have already provided a bunch of sources which support the word "militant" and many of them also support the word "terrorist". Your false claims about the sourcing make no sense.
 * First you claim that you have no issue with the word "militant" but that is contrary to the reality because whenever you edit this article your first priority is to remove the word "militant". Read WP:CENSOR.
 * Your claim that "he never once demanded it" and ... "that's why we can't call him militant on lead" is nonsensical. There is no requirement for a militant to demand his own country.
 * Chomskywala had no objection to my wording.
 * You alone with your POV pushing at this stage who has problem with the word "militant". Read WP:1AM.
 * If you can't propose wording without censoring the word "militant" then you are just wasting your time. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No one said anything that didn't refer to you as well, read what was written about you before your attempted shortcut got shut down. They all only made calm recommendations. Daniel Case called out your own lack of clean hands, and clearly noted the support I have. Chomskywala had plenty of faults with your edit, you just ignored them all and made no amendments, and he simply disengaged without assenting. I'm actually making you address them, hence this tantrum. Again, it is there for all to see so I would gladly let admins have a second look. Same with the ANEW thing, because I'm not sold on your reading comprehension..."ThAt's WhY wE cAn't CaLl HiM mIlItAnT oN lEaD" When did I say this? Hallucinating more strawmen? it says "leader of militancy" and "militant cadre," that's twice. Have you even read the article past the first sentence? Stop embarrassing yourself. Sapedder (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yet I am not the one engaging in any policy violation while you have not only edit warred but also spread disinformation in your edits. You are still alone with removing the word "militant". Chomskywala had no issue with my edits after the above discussion. See my message below. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So C.Fred was also spreading misinfo when he reverted? It was reverted because it had no source, though perhaps you wish you hadn't added that source now. Sapedder (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am talking about you, not C.Fred, that you were promoting disinformation by adding 12 February as birth date. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * C.Fred added the date and source in 2020 at the request of another user, I had no role. As is typical of your amateur detective work it is characterized by nothing but distortions and omissions to create deceitful snippets ripped from context. Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Evidence is contrary. You are the one who introduced this misinformation. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 2020 predates 2022, so this is both clearly false and a bit desperate. C.Fred added the source and date per another user, just admit you goofed. I (and others) simply followed the existing source. Speaking of your own Amarinder source you added in its place, it clearly stated along with a slew of others that he never demanded Khalistan, much less "led" it (which doesn't even make sense in 1981), but you ignored it when it became inconvenient. Lazy tertiary sources like Aspinall/Sinha that uncritically recycle government lines are far from authoritative. btw accusations of "promoting disinformation" is not good-faith behavior. Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Absolutely a militant. I note that I wasn't pinged in this discussion, and same with who also happened to restore the so-called 'label'. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on answering a question that was never asked. Sapedder (talk) 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why you are removing the word 'militant' all of the time in violation of WP:CENSOR? Srijanx22 (talk) 11:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It gets reverted because of what else you had in your edit. Unless you are being willfully obtuse to continue obfuscating, why is this so difficult for you to get. It's almost all we've been talking about. Sapedder (talk) 05:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So far, 4 editors have restored the word "militant" just recently. Because there is apparently no issue with it. Instead of this engagement in this WP:IDHT, you would be better off with dropping the stick. Srijanx22 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 5 editors also reverted the edit. The ANEW admins also noted this, so don't try to twist things. Hiding behind editors who vandalize user pages, and who have barely contributed a sentence to the discussion between the four of them because they can't touch WP:BALANCE, will not work. IDHT is your whole strategy! You openly ignore like 9 sources pointed out to you in talk that refute your claim of "Khalistan movement," but you keep re-adding it with no attempt to balance this. You should accept that almost ten sources refute your statement, that your own source wrecked you, and you should take your own advice, admit your error, and drop it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapedder (talk • contribs)
 * Which "5 editors" are you talking about? Not a single source by you claims "Bhinderanwale was not a militant". If you could find a few of them, then only it would make sense for you to censor the word "militant" from the lead. Thus your nonsensical claim that "almost ten sources refute your statement" is not gonna fly. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is mainly getting reverted because "leading figure of Khalistan movement" is rebutted by a dozen sources. This has been stated for several days now. You can obfuscate all you want but it only makes you look confused at best and openly deceptive at worst, which is not "gonna fly." And for the record: myself, Elephanthunter, Chomskywala, Daredevils56, Hjjajh, Gurfysingh. Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Retain the term militant on first sentence. I haven't seen any reasonable explanation in this discussion against retaining it. GenuineArt (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The burden is on the one adding to make the case. you need to address the concerns Chomskywala and I have raised, for starters. It already exists in the lead two times, this redundancy was added briefly in 2019 without consensus. Sapedder (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But by far, you are the only person edit warring to censor the reliably source label. You need to stop this WP:DE. There is no mention of "militant" anywhere else on the opening sentence and it is necessary to keep it there for providing accurate description of the subject. I have already provided enough sources for describing the prevalence of the term "militant" and "terrorist" attached to Bhinderanwale. Where is your rebuttal against it? Srijanx22 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your instinct to distort is utterly remarkable. How many times must it be said that the main reason you are being reverted is that you keep adding "Khalistan movement," when a dozen sources pointed out to you contradict that saying that he did not support Khalistan do how can he be a "leading figure" of such? You like "rebuttals" so much you rebutted yourself with Amarinder. THAT is what WP:BALANCE is about, not "militant" which is a secondary issue. The main issue, that a dozen source rebut, is "Khalistan movement" "Khalistan movement" "Khalistan movement" how many times must it be said? I'm still not sure if this a deliberate ruse or if your comprehension issues are that profound. You add it knowing that a dozen sources counter it, that is peak tendentious and disruptive behavior.
 * When you first saw the lead it said "militant/leader of militancy" twice, nowhere did it state the opposite. Do your arguments even make sense to yourself? That is not what requires BALANCE, it is "Khalistan movement" that does. You keep deliberately distracting from that to avoid it, mostly with this conspiratorial "militancy" strawman that you can't see past, which is revealing.
 * But what applies to the edit is that you are "by far" the main one fighting for it, so 1AM is just desperate hypocrisy. "it is necessary" is not an argument, just more feelings. You want to shoehorn it so badly that "Damdami Taksal" is also repeated twice in the lead. You have no regard for article quality, you are just here to push POV and you keep confirming it. Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "militant" is going to stay, regardless of how much you try to disrupt this page by having WP:LASTWORD with your continued WP:IDHT. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "I want it like that" is not an argument. "Militant" and "militancy" have always been there so this is more nonsense. Your wikilawyering is tedious, spamming blue links does not replace actual rational explanation. Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

as you can see, half a dozen editors now have reverted this very contentious edit to the lead. It is still being litigated, so can you lock the page, or have it locked) for a period? I think I've given talk a fair shot now, but it's like talking to a brick wall to whom sources and NPOV don't matter. Dispute resolution is probably next as discussed at ANEW, but I don't want the page to be an endless chain of reverts in the meantime. Sapedder (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already proven by providing several reliable sources to prove that Bhinderanwale is commonly described with the labels like "terrorist", "militant". Nobody is going to lock the page only because you are the lone edit warrior per WP:1AM attempting to get of the reliably sourced anyhow, contrary to your outright false claims that "dozen editors now have reverted". Again, you would be better off with dropping the stick. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeat "1AM" all you like, you are also the main one who is reinstating while throwing out this "militancy" red herring and obfuscating the issue. This is called "projection." You don't know what 1AM or "censor" mean so your judgment is not to be trusted. What is reliably sourced is that he never asked for Khalistan (you can distract from this all you like), if you try to baldly state without balance that he was a "leading figure" of a movement he never led, of course it will get reverted. A "dozen editors"? Can nothing escape distortion in your mind? Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * But its always typical of you to censor the word "militant" against consensus on the talk page instead of explaining why you don't like the word on lead. He is a leading figure of Khalistani movement as supported by several sources. You are yet to show the source which say contrary. Srijanx22 (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You have been told repeatedly that your edit is reverted mainly because of your "leading figure" POV. Multiple users have explained to you multiple times that "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" make Damdami Taksal sound like a militant group, which it isn't. The statement lacks precision. Your addition also duplicates "Damdami Taksal" twice in 2 lines, ruining any compositional rules for the lead. You care neither for writing composition or precision, only pushing POV.
 * Speaking of which, this is the final bit of proof that you have never been engaging in honest discussion. Your stonewalling has sent us right back to square one. This very discussion started by Chomskywala showing you a bunch of sources, which you then completely disregarded, prompting my entry into the discussion. So "no one showed me any sources" is yet another open lie. Let me refresh your memory with just some:


















 * DRN or a similar avenue will be next, this is going nowhere because you have never engaged in good faith. Sapedder (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

, : As per your suggestions on September 1st, I have gone ahead and filed a case at DRN. If it's not too tedious, feel free to go through this talk page discussion, I think it has gone as far as it will as we are clearly talking at cross-purposes. Any help or advice either of you can give over at DRN would be greatly appreciated. Sapedder (talk) 05:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Militant
Sant jarnail singh bhindrawala was not a militant. He fought for the right of the people of Punjab. He was a great leader. 2409:4051:8A:7315:324C:D47B:A215:59BD (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2023
Remove "He never explicitly advocated for Khalistan as it contradicts the second para 3rd line "largely autonomous state within india" and some lines which glorify him in 4th para as they are baseless as of date. All these changes are in (Top) section. TheExpert112 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2023 (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. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC
Which version is better for the first paragraph of the lead? Srijanx22 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Proposal 1 (written by me):

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (born Jarnail Singh Brar; 2 June 1947 – 6 June 1984) was an Indian militant   and the leading figure of Khalistan movement.

He was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal. He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,     gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.


 * Proposal 2 (written by Sapedder):

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (born Jarnail Singh Brar; 2 June 1947 – 6 June 1984) was the fourteenth jathedar, or leader, of the prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution Damdami Taksal. He was an advocate of the Anandpur Sahib Resolution,  gaining significant attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.

Srijanx22 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Proposal 1 There is no other fact for which Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is better known compared to these 2 facts: 1) he was a militant, 2) he was a key figure of Khalistan movement. He was obviously a 'militant' per his participation in Operation Blue Star and the sources I provided. The opening sentence must say he was a "militant" just like Wikipedia calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on lead. It should also mention that he was the key figure of Khalistan movement. These are just facts and should be preserved on lead. Srijanx22 (talk)  19:34, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Both being a militant and part of the Khalistan movement seem notable enough for the lead. However, minor grammatical nickpic: it should be of the Khalistan movement, not of Khalistan movement. Clyde State your case (please use&#32; on reply) 20:44, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * could I invite you to take a look at the existing sources I have included in my take that dispute this (they were not presented in the RfC previously, I have included them here after consulting with admins), and review your selection in light of having seen sources from both perspectives? Sapedder (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

*’’’2’’’ more encyclopedic. If alternate term to militant is used, 1 might be acceptable. F117IS (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC) Blocked sock puppet
 * 1 Concise and accurate. Accesscrawl (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2 seems to be more encyclopedic. Bhindranwale was not a leading figure in the Khalistan movement. This claim by #1 is addressed in MoS WP:LEAD Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. It seems like an effort to shoe-horn information that has been refuted directly into the lede. Also, there are words other than "militant" (used by #1) which don't carry the same connotations. If I had to guess, #1 leans Indian nationalist rather than WP:NPOV. #2 does a shockingly good job of sticking to the facts at hand, given the contentious subject matter. 〜 ⠀snowy🌼meadows˙ 05:19, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 2: This was the long-standing lead for a reason. The article currently also states that "he was not an advocate of Khalistan," along with some of the sources in the article, including these, which were clearly left out here:



There is clear dispute about "Khalistan movement," so it's not "just facts." These include secondary perspectives stating such, not just quotes from the subject. Tertiary sources certainly do not outweigh secondary ones, so these too must be accounted for, and balanced for neutrality. Seeing as perspectives clearly clash, per WP:BALANCE we must "describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint," which the end of the lead already does, and not insist on breaking NPOV. What he is "best known for" is completely subjective, hence meaningless. As for "militant," he is already described twice as such in the lead, so this is a non-issue. Sapedder (talk) 05:26, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 Meets the definition of a "militant". Even if he was not an advocate of the Khalistan state, he nevertheless served as the leading icon of the movement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 Saw this on AN/I. The first proposal correctly states what the subject is really all about per MOS:LEAD and is backed with quality WP:RS. The quotations provided above remind me of "never ask never ask a convict: 'What crime did you commit?'" because it's obvious that a criminal will deny all wrongdoing. It makes no sense to omit the most important facts about the subject from the lead. Azuredivay (talk) 17:00, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2023
SANT JARNIL WAS NOT A TERRORIST GURSHAN SINGH PB46 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Reliable sources describe him as such and make clear who perceive him as one. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, you are still wrong. You have to earn more about him. HE WAS A SAINT NOT A MILITANT TheFastestPerson (talk) 23:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are right. @C.Fred you are wrong! LEARN MORE ABOUT HIM. TheFastestPerson (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheFastestPerson And what reliable sources should I read about him in? —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred Get on Sikhnet.com & search up his name. TheFastestPerson (talk) 10:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheFastestPerson I did, and there's no bibliography, so that's a dead end. —C.Fred (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred I did research & there is NO DEAD END TheFastestPerson (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheFastestPerson So, what sources did you see cited there? I didn't see anything there that I could read and use as a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred Here: "He spread the original values of Sikhism and persuaded people young and old to follow the original rules and tenets of the religion." TheFastestPerson (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @C.Fred @TheFastestPerson I know I have nothing to do with this but if you want to truly learn about Sant Jarnail Singh listen to his speeches and read Struggle for Justice a translation of the speeches.  CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @CanadianSingh1469 Even with that, his speeches are, at best, primary sources. The issue is that when independent reliable sources describe a subject in a particular way, we use that description. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I am talking about reading that book if you just want to learn about him for personal interest. (Form an opinion) Not talking about using it on Wikipedia. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @TheFastestPerson That's a statement of the author, not a source. —C.Fred (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2023
Please change the phrase to "free rein." The phrase "free reign" is incorrect. Soozcat00 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pinchme123 (talk) 05:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Remove word "militant"
There is no any fir police records against him how you can used militants word what proof you have militants those who raped sikh women murder sikh children genocide innocent sikh people in dehli Pimky005 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove word "militant"
There is no any fir police records against him how you can used militants word what proof you have militants those who raped sikh women murder sikh children genocide innocent sikh people in dehli Pimky005 (talk) 09:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove word "militant".
Why did u used militant word.What is the proof.Militant was the army which attacked the sacred place and killed hundreds of innocent peopleincluding kids and women.￼ 117.224.4.51 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)


 * With five sources cited, four of which have pull quotes that directly call him a militant, the use of the word is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
 * This is very unfair that you block my address after your reply.How i will able to share my views and provide you the sources to support my comment.Sant jarnail singh bhindrwala was a respected personality of Sikhs.He was not a militant. even there is not a single F.i.r registered against him. The well known BJP MP MR.SUBRAMANIAN SWAMI call him a saint(https://digpu.com/opinion/bhindranwale-was-a-saint-said-swami).Also You must see him from the perspective of Sikhs also.You should visit punjab and ask the people yourself about Bhindranwala.You will get only positive comments about them.Militants kills peoples,did he??He raise his voice against injustice of INDIAN GOVT. TOWARDS PUNJAB AND ASKS FOR A FEDRAL SYSTEM.He dare to stand against govt.Govt. will do anything to protect its interst wheteher it is fair or unfair.Punjab is suffering from centre govt. policies till now.The recent Farmer protest led by punjab is ne example of this.You should be neutral.I request again to remove the word Militants as its hurts the sentiments of Sikh community. 117.254.59.252 (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Biased article
This is totally a biased article.Spreading misinformation about Sikh community.Authors and editors not wants to hear the other side.They are calling Sant jarnail singh bhindranwalw a "militant" while he is a hero of Sikh community.Read other sources,do your own research.Do not be such blind on this plateform.I challange the authors and editors of this article to debate with me in this topic.You have deleted my previous comment. Sant jarnail singh bhindranwala was a hero and will be remain a hero which got martyrdom with many innocent Sikh mens,women and children. Militant was indian army which open gunfire and tanks at the sacred Darbar sahab(GOLDEN TEMPLE). 117.208.98.94 (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Procastineater overturning consensus
, discuss your proposed changes here. The community has already decided that the most appropriate descriptor to use in the lede is "militant". Further, your addition of him being a "revered freedom fighter" is techinally already reflected in the lede, in the last paragraph of the lede, where it states: While the Sikhs' highest temporal authority Akal Takht describe him a 'martyr', with immense appeal among rural sections of the Sikh population, who saw him as a powerful leader, who stood up to Indian state dominance and repression. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Southasianhistorian8 spam editing / false depiction
Southasianhistorian8, Thank you for getting back to me, firstly you got my name wrong on your topic its Procrastinater not *Procastineater*, secondly, you mentioned that community has decided, this is not a political forum that something is decided upon, it is an information platform where things are agreed upon, which is definitely not the case here just check the last 3 headings in the article. Lastly, you mentioned that my edits are reflected upon in the paragraph, which means even you are in agreement with the majority consensus on Baba Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. You are in a constant struggle to garb the truth with hate, in this case it is clear voilation of Wikipedia guideline of '''conduct policy. Regards,'''

Procrastinater (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 October 2023
Change “militant” to “freedom fighter”. The use of militant was disproven as it was used by the Indian government for anti-Sikh propaganda. 72.107.236.112 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources that support your claims. RegentsPark (comment) 00:04, 31 October 2023 (UTC)