Jump to content

Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Comment on recent edit-war

I noticed the recent edit-war over the article content and thought to review the changes being made/opposed. It was, however, virtually impossible for me to get an handle on all the changes made over just two-edits in which a lot of material was added, removed and moved around, resulting in a net increase of 38 kilobytes in the article size. So while I have no view over the added content yet, I was able to take a look at the new references that the additions appear to be largely based-upon, and I find those to be problematic. To wit, the main two references added in Sapedder version are:

  1. Dhillon, Gurdarshan Singh (1996). Truth about Punjab: SGPC White Paper (1st ed.). Amritsar, Punjab: Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. ISBN 978-0836456547. Retrieved 25 March 2020. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    Dhillon, 1996 is cited about 17 times (including long extracts included in the Notes section). It is a self-published work of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, which was a prominent player in the life and events desccibed in the article. Thus, while it may be okay to use it sparingly to represent SGPC's views of the history (with proper attribution), it should not be treated as a high-quality or independent source.
  2. Sandhu, Ranbir Singh (1999). Struggle for Justice: Speeches and Conversations of Sant Jarnail Singh Khalsa Bhindranwale (1st ed.). Dublin, Ohio, U.S.A.: Sikh Educational & Religious Foundation. ISBN 9780967287416. Retrieved 23 March 2020. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
    Sandhu, 1999 is cited about 28 times, including a lengthy extract about a personal conversation the author recalled. The author Dr. Ranbir Singh Sandhu is referred to as "professor emeritus of Ohio State University", which is both true and misleading. Sandhu was a professor of Civil Engineering at OSU and his role is that of an activist and collator/translator of Bhindranwale 's speeches, and not of an academic in the relevant field. The speeches/conversations he collected and translated are a valuable primary source for scholars to study and analyze, and Sandhu has indeed been repeatedly acknowledged in secondary sources for these efforts; however, the primary material itself (ie, the speeches etc) should be cited with care (if at all) in a tertiary work like wikipedia and only when put in proper context provided by acceptable secondary sources. Additionally, the cited book appears to be self-published (in that I didn't find any references to the publisher "Sikh Educational & Religious Foundation" other than with regards to two of Sandhu's books) and afaik has received no academic or mainstream-press reviews; thus the commentary surrounding the speeches and conversations is perhaps not usable at all.

My suggestions for editing once the current protection ends: please edit one paragraph /section at a time so that the changes can be more easily reviewed by other involved editors. And, base the edits on WP:HISTRS-compliant sources as far as possible, and if needed consult at WP:RSN to get further input on the usability of particular sources. Abecedare (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I can make the edits section-by-section for easy viewing with no problem when the lock lifts. I would like to submit that:
  • The SGPC source itself draws quite significantly from secondary sources as well as independent (non-Sikh, mostly non-Punjabi to my knowledge) Indian journalists, who had no horse in the race, so to speak, and could analyze and/or criticize Sikh and central government leadership evenhandedly. Dhillon is also a retired academic with a lot of knowledge about the riperian situation and federalist tensions and policies that fueled a lot of the partisanship between the state and the center (and which is glossed over in favor of the bombastic and religious angle currently). He in turn is also quoted about these topics in other secondary sources like this one, for example, among others. The SGPC is certainly a party to the events, but as it stands the only people being quoted (almost exclusively) are a slew of Congress supporters, whose partisan involvement was arguably even greater than the of the Akalis and the SGPC, who had a complicated relationship to JSB, especially early on. Arguably the only heavily-used source that is close to neutral is that of Cynthia Keppley-Mahmood (which I have also made a lot of use of, and cleaned up the disparate references to under one tag).
  • I also considered adding 'engineering professor emeritus' to the Sandhu description but it seemed like a awkward digression from the topic (I have no problem qualifying him as such though, as it is open information). The point was that he was not a stranger to the academy or the scholarly method, he had access to speak with top Indian elected officials at top American universities, and basically wasn't just some dude off the street (I believe he took an interest in the topic well after they concluded). I also deemed it necessary to make the source accessible on the page to contextualize so many of the distorted quotes that were and continue to be circulated by a certain caliber of "journalist." The book is also filled with useful footnotes and cross-references to secondary sources and such.
I would also reiterate that no info and sources were removed in the process of my edits. Most of the sections expanded are in the same order (I renamed a section to "Press reportage," and put that section, "Insurgency," and "Khalistan" in the right order). The major move in information was the "Congress creation" stuff from the lead to the "Politics" section, where it was balanced and expanded, and the Congress criticisms strewn all over the article, which were gathered and moved to "Press reportage" and also balanced. I would say that the changes can still be compared in the diff (with some effort, I concede), but again I have no problem adding section-by-section. In any case this page needs a *lot* of help, and has been wp:owned and gate-kept by single users for the better part of two years given the edit history, when this transformation seems to have taken place (the article before seemed somewhat neutral, if still nowhere near encyclopedia-worthy). Sapedder (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for being open to the slow-it-down approach. Just a couple of quick notes: instead of citing the SGPC report, which "draws quite significantly from secondary sources", cite those sources directly as long as they are otherwise acceptable (and better/more recent sources are not available). And as for Sandhu, qualifying him as an "enginneering professor" is not sufficient; given his lack of credentials as a scholar in the relevant field, don't cite him at all.
The fundamental point being: Bhindranwale's life, politics and era have been subject of significant scholarly attention and there is no justification for settling for ersatz sources. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that there is a lot of other good material to draw from, I have collected a few more sources in the last few days as time permits. These sources are simply good starting points, and much of the material in the diff using the SGPC citation is directly cross-referenced in the source. Some questions:
  • In regards to Sandhu, would you mean avoid citing the author's commentary, and simply stick to the speech translations (sparingly and as needed of course, to clarify other attempts to "quote" JSB, and as other secondary sources have done)?
  • Would it be okay, instead of presenting direct excerpts of speeches, to state, "JSB stated (or "is held to have stated by (source/author here)") in a speech on (date here) that (paraphrase what was said)," for example?
  • Is Dhillon's (a retired history professor with a Ph.D. in the field) commentary free and clear for use (within reasonable bounds of course, and for balance)?
  • Any thoughts on the notes section? Sapedder (talk) 08:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Quick answers:
  • On Sandhu: Right about the commentary being unusable. As for the speeches themselves: if a secondary source analyzes a JSB speech and quotes Sandhu's translation, then IMO it would be okay to supplement the citation to the secondary source with a citation to Sandhu's work. However, it is not up to us to expand on the analyzed quote or (worse) counter the secondary source's analysis by citing Sandhu on what JBS "actually" said or thought; such comparative analysis and juxtaposition is best left to scholars (see, eg, this paper) and on wikipedia WP:OR/WP:SYN policies specifically forbid us from undertaking such a task.
  • On Dhillon: depends upon the work and content you intend to cite it for. In general, a book's reliability is judged based upon the author, publisher, recency, reviews and how often and in what context it has been cited by other scholars, and those will need to be looked into before being able to make a call on particular work.
See WP:HISTRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP for further guidelines and info. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the 30k bytes of content added by Sapedder but I agree that the version from June 2018 or earlier should be restored. Main reason is that the article heavily depends on Gill, unreliable source for the subject as already discussed on WP:RSN. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Harmanprtjhj: I tend to agree that the reliance of the article on the Gill book (which is cited 15 times in the current version) should be reduced and be largely limited to (a) undisputed facts, or (b) statements attributed to Gill. One way to do that would be to examine each of the 15 times the work is cited and then, for each instance, decide whether to keep it, replace the citation (if possible), add proper attribution, remove the citation and the statement it is used to support etc. Alternatively, we could revert the article to, say, the June 2018 version.
    The problem with the latter strategy is that we'll also be throwing away all the improvements made to the article over the last two years, and it can start an endless cycle with some editors insisting that we revert further back because the June 2018 version is problematic in certain aspects too (as almost any version is sure to be). So, to start with, can you specify which exact version you are proposing to revert to so that we can at least get an idea whether that or the current version is a better starting point for further improvements? Abecedare (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    I just realized there is a second book co-authered by Gill that is cited another 9 times. My above comment would apply to that too. Abecedare (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    The source was not deemed unreliable in the RSN discussion and should be acceptable for facts. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 257#Book written by an involved police officer. GSS 💬 13:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, thanks for recalling the RSN thread. I remember that Harmanprtjhj wasn't able to substantiate any of his criticisms. Especially in the light of the book reviews that I posted there, there should be no concerns with the Gill's book. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Most editors had agreed that the source is unreliable for controversial article such as this and it could be used only for facts but not without attribution. See the comments by Jehochman, SlaterSteven, Excelse, Sitush and many other editors. Abecedare has also agreed that we should avoid dependence on this source. At the end of the day it remained undisputed that how this source is not a "unreliable primary source". A policeman writing about something where he is deeply involved is far from qualifying for WP:RS. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
My 2c: I believe the reliable-unreliable binary is too blunt for sources like the Gill's books, SGPC report etc, which are popular/POV tellings by persons close to the events, published by non-academic presses (or self-published, in the latter case), and afaik, receiving no scholarly reviews. That does not mean that we cannot use these sources at all, or should label then as "false" or "unreliable". What it does mean is that we should use them with care and replace with more WP:HISTRS-compliant sources as far as possible.
Harmanprtjhj, can you specify what article version you are suggesting we revert to, so that we can at least settle on a starting point for further article improvements? Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Harmanprtjhj, you are misrepresenting the RSN discussion, I don't see anyone in the thread said that Gills book is unreliable. Can you provide a diff to support your claim? GSS 💬 17:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@GSS: Yeah, I'm not sure "unreliable" is warranted. But I would say Gill is often a WP:PRIMARY source, since he was working from the perspective of an Indian police officer during a conflict of which India is a party. --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Abecedare: Thanks for the tips and links, and for going out of your way to link to that example source. The Dhillon and Sandhu references have now both been largely sidelined and/or supplemented by better sources. The edited version of the article is now significantly expanded (220+ citations), and I don't want to touch off anything unnecessarily, so I was wondering if I could email you the .txt version of the edit for you to peruse and give your impression on in terms of suitability, before commencing with any edits. (Not sure if I can send attachments with Wikipedia email though.)
In terms of reverting back to a suitable version to start from, I'm not opposed to it (I would recommend the 7 July 2018 version before it was quickly converted into and unilaterally maintained as an wp:attack page by a single user), but I don't think it may even be necessary, as long as all the Congressite commentary is qualified with in-text attribution (and not presented as fact like it currently is) and is incorporated and balanced, as my previous edit attempted to do. Much of the "sourced information" that was added since is frankly just facile conspiratorialism and Congressite invective. Even the little neutral info was added over the last two years is written in a slanted tone, and is simply a bare-bones version of events that can be easily cited with better, less controversial sources. The user had more than enough time to make the article worth something but showed no such inclination or really any deep knowledge of the conditions on the ground.
As far as the RSN discussion, while as I said I don't think we need to remove the source, I don't think Harmanprtjhj was too far off the mark. Nearly everyone in that discussion had deep reservations with the free usage of that source except for of course the one guy who was adamant about it being problem-free gospel, and chafed at the prospect of having to attribute statements, as if that was the only source available. The logic was really something ... ("But he was a government official in the police force giving his personal version of events, what conflict of interest? The state gave him trinkets and awards! What's the issue?" ...are you serious?) But I figured that if we had to keep this "sourced" information then adding Dhillon etc. was only fair. If one necessarily has its place, so does the other.
Anyway, again I'm willing to email you the planned edit for your thoughts about the sources before making any moves on the article. Sapedder (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Ping @Abecedare: Above reply. In a nutshell: edit have been amended, can send it to you for preliminary viewing before taking any action on the article. Thanks, Sapedder (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the above comments onboard and (if I am understanding correctly) writing another draft of the article that aims to resolve the mentioned issues. However, as I said in my original note at the top of the section, it would be best to introduce the proposed changes "one paragraph/section at a time so that the changes can be more easily reviewed by other involved editors." Emailing me will not be helpful because (1) I am not a subject expert in this area and can more easily evaluate source-quality than whether any proposed text represent the totality of the literature fairly; others involved with this page may be better positioned to comment upon the latter, and (2) even if I were to buy in to any version, that would not suffice, and consensus would still need to be reached through discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
IMO the changes must be proposed on this talk page as one paragraph at a time in a separate section for page watchers to review and discuss. Once all agree we can update the article per consensus. GSS 💬 02:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good, I will commence with the edits, section-by-section as proposed. The changes will be able to be reviewed clearly in the diffs. As for the comment directly above mine, 38 KB of info was added in the previous edits, and a lot more than that will be added this time around, so getting bogged down in a "one paragraph at a time" review in the talk page is neither time-efficient, nor any more efficient than using edit diffs. And anything like this infeasible measure was strangely not proposed when a POV-pushing former user ran roughshod over the page unchecked in 2018, unilaterally dictating its tone. During that time he accepted no compromise with anyone, mostly avoiding all concerns raised by filibustering, and can't answer for his edits now. If the GSS proposal is to have any merit at all, then I would have to more strongly support Harmanprtjhj's proposition of reverting to any earlier version of the page as a starting point for my own edits. Anything less would not be equitable.
For all interested parties, the edits will begin from the bottom of the article up, as the edits of the bottom half of the article are less concentrated there. Sapedder (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


The edits are completed. The edits are fully visible through both diffs for each section, and explained by thorough edit summaries. I mentioned earlier that the edits were significantly expanded with info, and it turned out to be almost 90 KB in added content, more than doubling the article. With that in mind, section-by-section with diffs is the most practical method of reviewing 90 KB total in additions, as opposed to para-by-para. Sapedder (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Sapedder, You have added controversial content with poor sources and phrases like "immense appeal among rural sections", "devote full time", "It is believed by some", without any discussion so I have reverted your edits and requesting you again please discuss your changes here on the talk page first as you were previously advised. GSS 💬 09:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
I am increasingly disinclined to take you seriously as someone I can work with in any capacity. You clearly just want the article to preserve its POV and keep it as the low-quality, poorly-written attack page Dbigxray turned it into without cooperating with anyone for two years (you seem to have no problem with that for some reason). "immense appeal" "devote full time" and "Congress creation" (only believed by those who don't want to discuss the conditions that caused his support) refuted thoroughly by six top-quality anthropological and JSTOR sources (Telford, Mahmood, Pettigrew, Cibotti, etc.) which you have the nerve to call "poor." There is no "controversial" content, everything is fully cited, and I exclusively used scholarly sources, which don't become "poor" just because you can't be bothered to read long writings. I'm quite curious to know why you never held him to account, with his poor English, bottom-tier "Indian news channel" sources, unabashed POV, and low-value content, and no one being quoted except Congress stooges. In any case, I acted as advised by Abecedare, your interactions with me have been marginal at best and mostly unpleasant. I once again reiterate my support for Harmanprtjhj's suggestion to revert to the version before July 2018 if you want your disingenuous paragraph-by-paragraph proposition to be considered, as you never held Dbidxray to anywhere near the same standard when he ruined the article single-handedly. His edits must be analyzed and discussed by the same standard before being accepted into the article; you can take his role and defend his edits to us the same way you propose to scrutinize mine. I do not accept the current Dbigxray version of the article as the default from which to start from. Sapedder (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sapedder: The new series of mass-edits were not a useful step in reaching a consensus, since they duplicated (and, arguably worsened) the problems of your original series of edits, which I had commented upon at top of the section. In brief:

  • Instead of 38k of additional content, its 85k now!
  • 'Dhillon 1996' and 'Sandhu 1999', rather than being eliminated/minimized, are cited extensively (42 times and 18 times by my rough count).
  • New sub-par references have been introduced. For example,

There are lots of other problematic/poor references but it would not be feasible to evaluate all of them at once. And I haven't even looked at, and am not commenting upon, the actual textual changes since, again, that cannot be reasonably reviewed in bulk. I understand why you may hold that a "one paragraph at a time" review in the talk page is not time-efficient, but given that the changes that are being introduced are contentious, I don't see any alternative way of reaching a consensus. Abecedare (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Abecedare, some thoughts:
  • A lot of content had to be added because a lot of context and history is omitted. The page is currently deficient in every way except for polemics. I know you are refraining from commenting due to unfamiliarity with the topic, but the AISSF isn't even mentioned here, inter-Akali politics, the Dharam Yudh Morcha section is basically one paragraph with "it got started for rights, then they got violent all of a sudden...," the social and economic circumstances that lead to discontent in the state are omitted, the police, the planning for the operation, the list goes on and on.... For goodness' sake there is an entire section solely dedicated to bashing the subject, mostly with recirculated distortions, absolving all other parties... and none of this partiality is made to answer for itself for even a moment.
  • About the Sandhu source, it was mostly used in conjunction with other sources that quoted JSB, and rarely on its own, mostly for purposes of adding a few dates on which the quotes were said. For this source as well as...
  • For Dhillon, it too was also used largely with other sources to secondarily corroborate what was being said. As I said in an earlier comment, I would be willing to purge the SGPC cites if there was a reversion to the pre-July 2018 version, as the commentary added thereafter is almost entirely from primary sources aligned with Congress who were involved in the events. It doesn't do to only have involved voices from one side of the aisle. Either both, or neither, if NPOV is a goal.
  • The publishing rights of Sathananthan et al. has variously passed in and out of India, indeed by Sikhs, though only 2 of the 7 contributors are Sikhs, with the remaining ones hailing from areas far from Punjab and the affected areas. It was written in 1983 at the peak of events, it's not a retroactive effort and actually dares to look at root causes, parties and institutions that for obvious reasons get glossed over or absolved in government accounts. A commentary, however brief, from govt officials, professors, and other notables has to have at least more heft than things like two-minute news-channel summaries that the article currently relies greatly on. In any case I will look for other permissible sources as time permits.
  • As for Cibotti... oh well then. Again I will keep an eye out for other writing.
  • If you saw my previous comment, I pull up page numbers of sources to prove that questioned phrasings are exactly as written. But no such complaints of "controversial" wording are raised with the current article. If "building consensus" entails spoon-feeding a single user every "controversial" word or phrase because they can't or won't check it themselves, and then arguing about each phrasing, we will literally be here for years. I also have a problem with most of the content and how it is written, but instead of bogging down the process with subjective, obstructionist complaints about every "controversial" statement, I instead let such statements stay and took the initiative to try to balance or expand on them. Again, the last guy to transform the article never amended a single statement, made no attempt to balance the article, and actively resisted the same process being recommended, but his version is the new default? I'd be more inclined to have my edits vetted as proposed, if the article was a basic outline as it was in 2018 and every major subsequent contributor underwent the same process.
  • At the very least, I request that something like a "multiple issues" template with concerns about neutrality, factual accuracy, etc. be added to the page to let readers know that this page is skewed in the extreme (if they can't figure it out just looking at the writing quality). Sapedder (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I have been a mute spectator to this page and its evolution for some time and finally decided to jump in now and share some thoughts, as it seems there is a critical mass here to deliberate and improve the page. I am not sure if my views will carry much weight as I am a newbie, but for whatever its worth, I do believe this page in its present form does not conform to the Wikipedia policy of neutrality. I have not gone through all the edits as proposed by Sapedder, but I would still support reinstating an older version of the page and beginning from there. The June-July 2018 version that is being considered would make sense. Cheers, JoyceGW1 (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@JoyceGW1: I looked at the June 2018 version of article, prior to the now renamed user's involvement with the page, and it is not particularly good in terms of the writing, organizations, NPOV or sourcing; the lede of that version is particularly bad. There well may be issues with the current (more-or-less stable) version too but I don't think an addition of another 85k or reverting to a 2-year old version is going to helpful in resolving them. Progress will need proposing and discussing individual amendments to deal with specific issues.
@Elephanthunter: can you please explain why you reverted to Sapedder's version of the article without participating in the above discussion, where I did point out numerous issues with the mass-changes? Abecedare (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I have reverted it back and request this page must be fully protected to prevent edit war and disruptive edits without any consensus. GSS 💬 15:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elephanthunter: You reverted my edit for the second time and I'll take this as vandalism because you are restoring a version that has multiple issues as explained above so, please discuss the matter here rather than edit warning. GSS 💬 15:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedare: Do you mind applying the protection at least till there is a clear consensus? already done by El C. GSS 💬 15:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
For future reference, you should ping an WP:UNINVOLVED administrator. Not trying to say anything negative about Abecedare, as I believe their behavior thus far is stellar. But that's likely why they did not place the page under protection. --Elephanthunter (talk) 19:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@GSS: I reverted your edit because there was agreement on how edits would resume. At the moment you are instead WP:STONEWALLING, blanket reverting multiple editors to your preferred version of an article (of which there is no consensus for agreement). The combative tactics you use... reverting back to your preferred version and immediately request a lock... that is edit war behavior. But then there is a complete disregard WP:AGF by accusing me of vandalism on the talk page. You should make an effort to actually discuss the topic matter at hand instead of personal attacks and mass reverts. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Did you read the comments by Abecedare before restoring the controversial/problematical version? If yes then why you didn't participate in the discussion before reverting the edits? GSS 💬 16:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Why didn't you simply revert the edits you disagreed with instead of literally everything? I assumed you must have made a mistake. Clearly you meant to participate in the discussions in good faith instead of WP:STONEWALLING and reverting multiple other editors. I took appropriate action and placed a friendly warning on your wall. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it's better if you accept your mistake for not reading a single message in the discussion above rather then blaming me for reverting the problematic version. You were pinged by Abecedare just after you restored the Sapedder's version, but you choose to ignore his question and continue reverting my edits. GSS 💬 17:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Abecedare, thank you for responding. I think all of us are in general agreement that the article as it stands today is not in a good shape. Quite a few of us seem to believe this strongly, and you also have acknowledged that possibility in your posts. The question then is how to proceed amending it further. The two options here are to go back to the 2018 version and begin from there, or, take the current version and edit that. Here, I do beg to differ with you when you mention the current version to be more-or-less-stable. A quick glance at the talk page and article history reveals an unusually conflict-prone last couple of years, which to me indicates a general level of unease and non-acceptance from the wider body of Wikipedia editors and the general readership at large. In light of this, I had supported reinstating an older and in my view more stable version of the article. If that is not acceptable and we decide to modify the current version, then I echo Elephanthunter's and Sapedder's views that the bar being placed on Sapedder's edits to be included is being unreasonably extreme. In this case, I would support that Sapedder's edits be reinstated first and then specific objections be raised and discussed on the talk page to modify and improve upon them. I am not that well versed with the sourcing guidelines here, which appear to be your main concern if I am not mistaken. I noticed Sapedder has tried to address them in their last post, so perhaps you could comment on those if that seems reasonable to you. Worth noting that in their post, Sapedder also mentions that if the article is reverted to 2018 version, they would be open to purging the content from some of their sources. Again, my two cents. Cheers, JoyceGW1 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


Abecedare, I recommended that version of the article not because of its merit per se, but because it can serve as a good starting point for future edits, precisely because it is little more than a basic outline. Whatever of value XRay added that isn't Congressite invective can also be re-added after equal scrutiny and encyclopedic rewriting. As mentioned above by JoyceGW1, this version is stable only because XRay brooked no compromise, and stalled out others in discussions. I would again be more amenable to having my own edits pre-screened tortuously before implementation if the starting point of the article was itself neutral, or primed for a complete rewrite. This version should not be given a free pass. The extensive POV, poor writing, and the unbalanced, primary, non-scholarly sources extensively used in the current version need to be scrutinized, attributed in-line, fixed and/or purged themselves before I, for example, take out every single Dhillon citation, which I am open to doing, but not unilaterally.
GSS, your contribution to the discussion up to this point has been marginal, mostly limited to reversions and snarkiness. Your tone with other editors is not constructive at all. Other users also have raised issues with my edits, but in a respectful way, offering specific fixes for the edits and getting involved in the process. You revert, then call for discussion without adding productive discussion, instead sitting back relying on other editors to do the heavy lifting. Stuff along the lines of "haha, very funny, the other guy explained you [sic] very well" is not discussion. You also need to admit that the current version of the article is a POV-fest that flagrantly violates multiple policies and needs an overhaul.
Several sections you mass-reverted made little to no use of the disputed sources (in response to "not a blind revert"), and you have only raised issue with solid edits over vague wording quibbles. Unfortunately, this process will require more exertion from you beside such reversions. As Elephanthunter said, this proposal of interminable line-by-line pre-screening in the talk section has never been demanded of other users and is meant to obstruct. The current POV version itself never met any consensus and should also undergo what you propose. Sapedder (talk) 07:24, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe we are now going around in circles trying to decide what article-version should be the starting point for the changes to be made instead of discussing specific changes themselves; as a result no actual improvements have been made to the article despite three weeks of discussion in this talkpage section. Lets just follow WP:BRD instead: two series of bold edits were made by Sapedder. Those were reverted by GSS and concerns were outlined by me. So now lets get down to the third step and discuss those changes/objections in bite-size pieces.

To get the ball rolling, Sapedder would you like to propose some specific addition/removal/amendment to the current version here on the talkpage? Pick any para or sub-section that you believe will benefit the most, or that will be easy to deal with (although I'd suggest keeping away from the lede for now since in my experience it is easy to get bogged down with that). Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Abecedeare for having a closer look. Looking at the dispute above after avoiding myself from commenting here for some days, I would at least add that we should remove the information that has been sourced to Gill, an involved officer, but then there is also enough violation of WP:TERRORIST and WP:NPOV, ignoring the fact that the figure had a positive reception during most of his life. "Bhindranwale has remained a controversial figure in Indian history" for a name, involves WP:WEASEL wording. The article further ignores a prevailing view among scholars that the Sikh separatist movement was significantly caused by the Indian government's mismanagement of Punjabi aspirations.[1] (p. 220) So how we should move ahead? Should the article be unprotected? I am kinda sure that we have enough users agreeing to revert to an earlier version. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 01:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
So how we should move ahead? I am fine with examining (a) the use of Gill, 2008 in the article (see my earlier reply on 01:10, 21 April 2020 for how that could proceed), (b) the appropriate adjectives/labels to be used for JSB in compliance with WP:TERRORIST, or (c) some other existing/proposed content that the other editors on the page would prefer to start with. Once we have picked one of these topics (although we shouldn't waste too much time/effort just deciding between (a), (b) or (c)!), we'll then have to examine the relevant existing/proposed article content and survey the related scholarly literature to see what amendments are needed, and arrive at a consensus through discussion. Once we are there, then the changes can be introduced in the article and we can move to the next topic. Not a "quick-fix" but at least the process will result in lasting improvements to the article. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Hundreds of sources called Bhindrawala a terrorist and militant so, I don't see any issue with using the word terrorist or militant to describe him, and I believe it was used under the guidelines at WP:TERRORIST see Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale/Archive 4 for more.

Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist or sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Avoid myth in its informal sense, and establish the scholarly context for any formal use of the term.


GSS 💬 04:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Who objected to 'militant'? I am only concerned with the particular misrepresentation of sources (most of the times) which has been done to refer him as "terrorist", which sometimes not only go against the source but overall Wikipedia policy. You missed "in which case use in-text attribution", now you can't expect us to add attribution in front of every "terrorist" mention. It should be simply "militant". To be honest, even article on Osama Bin Laden is far more neutral than this article. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
@Abecedeare Agree that there is no quick fix available. I believe that creation of a draft is in order to rectify the errors and obvious problems in the article if others are also fine with it. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Like Xray, some may be raring to denigrate the subject in every other line, but yes, such terms should be used with restraint and with full in-line attribution. Maybe take a look at non-India-related Wiki articles on controversial figures to find out what that actually looks like. Articles should emphasize objective facts and details over partisan condemnation and bombast. And as stated above, no one objected to "militant" so that is a straw man (though the subject did not start out that way, and that term should also be used with restraint). Sapedder (talk) 02:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to start with step (c) by reverting to the more neutral June 2018 version. Steps (a), (b) and many other discussion topics would then follow naturally from there. Most of the modifications I believe would be non-contentious (basically amounting to presenting both sides of the story and the historical perspective, in a balanced way), while some would require more careful wording. JoyceGW1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  • GSS, Harmanprtjhj: if the plan is to start with discussion of the appropriate labels for JBS, we should do so in another talkpage section, and start by compiling what labels scholars apply to the subject; I can help with the latter part, at least as far as the electronic access I have to sources allows (the local physical libraries are closed). But lets wait for another 12-24 hours to let the others chime in on whether this is the topic they'd like to start with.
  • JoyceGW1, I doubt that any proposal for mass-changes to the article (either reverting to the Sapedder's version or to the 2018 version) is likely to gain consensus. Hence my comment at 18:10, 2 May 2020 to proceed with the regular BRD process and at least make incremental improvements to the article. If others still feel that reverting to one of the alternate versions is the way to go, I'd suggest that they start an RFC on the topic although, fwiw, my expectation is that the proposal will fail and we'll be back to where we are now. Abecedare (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare. I am not aware how to start an RFC so perhaps one of the other editors can do that. (Having read through the debates on this page, both over some time and this current one and the direction it is taking, I very strongly feel that once we revert to the 2018 version almost all of the acrimony we are witnessing would just evaporate. Most of the content that people would want to add then would be non-contentious (we will all agree to having both sides of the story presented with proper attribution to the sources). The only debate I feel would be on the usage of the T word. On the other hand, if we start with this version and ask for a line-by-line or even section-by-section updates, (a) it would not be perceived fair by many, and (b) we may be in for a painstaking long haul. Just my hunch :-)). JoyceGW1 (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how RfC would be helpful in determining the consensus. RfC is for major changes but not for significant overhauling. For starters I have now started a draft at User:Harmanprtjhj/JSB. You can compare present version and June 2018 version more easily there and finalize a version over which we can agree on. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jarnail_Singh_Bhindranwale/Archive_5&oldid=970897151"