No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
re2 |
||
Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
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 [[User:Taranmann0|Taranmann0]] ([[User talk:Taranmann0|talk]]) 17:38, 21 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 [[User:Taranmann0|Taranmann0]] ([[User talk:Taranmann0|talk]]) 17:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Lead == |
|||
@[[User:Srijanx22|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. [[User:Chomskywala|Chomskywala]] ([[User talk:Chomskywala|talk]]) 17:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC). |
@[[User:Srijanx22|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. [[User:Chomskywala|Chomskywala]] ([[User talk:Chomskywala|talk]]) 17:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC). |
||
Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
:::::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. [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk:Srijanx22|talk]]) 12:25, 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. [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk: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". [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk:Srijanx22|talk]]) |
:::::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". [[User:Srijanx22|Srijanx22]] ([[User_talk:Srijanx22|talk]]) |
||
::::::uh, are ''you'' sure? I'm "the alone (sic)"? Want to take that up with the admins and embarrass yourself at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Sapedder_reported_by_User:Srijanx22_(Result:_Declined) 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 [[WP:LIKE|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. [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
*Absolutely a militant. I note that I wasn't pinged in this discussion, and same with {{U|Kautilya3}} who also happened to restore the so-called 'label'. [[User:Accesscrawl|Accesscrawl]] ([[User talk:Accesscrawl|talk]]) 03:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
*Absolutely a militant. I note that I wasn't pinged in this discussion, and same with {{U|Kautilya3}} who also happened to restore the so-called 'label'. [[User:Accesscrawl|Accesscrawl]] ([[User talk:Accesscrawl|talk]]) 03:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Congratulations on answering a question that was never asked. [[User:Sapedder|Sapedder]] ([[User talk:Sapedder|talk]]) 06:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Birthdate (June 2nd vs February 12th) == |
== Birthdate (June 2nd vs February 12th) == |
Revision as of 06:16, 4 September 2022
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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).[1] 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)
- What seems obvious is that "By 1981, he had become the leading figure of an aggressive movement for a Sikh state" (Khalistan).[1] 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 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)
- 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)
Srijanx22, Chomskywala brought up several points, pretty much all of which you completely disregarded and failed to accomodate during this "consensus."
- 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.
- 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.
- "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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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,
- 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 @Elephanthunter:, @Chomskywala: 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[2] and you are alone with this blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:50, 1 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:-
- "Who is Iqbal Singh Lalpura, ex-cop who arrested Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and newest member of BJP's top body?". Firstpost. 2022-08-17.
Bhindranwale was a militant leader and leading figure of the Khalistan movement who was killed in Operation Blue Star in 1984.
- "Controversy over Punjabi film, song glorifying militant on death row". NDTV. 2019-02-22.
Bhindranwale was a militant leader who had holed up with his supporters
- Malji, A. (2022). Religious Nationalism in Contemporary South Asia. Elements in Religion and Violence. Cambridge University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-108-91118-4.
Bhindranwale was a militant Sikh
- Sinha, C. (2019). The Great Repression: The Story of Sedition in India. Penguin Random House India Private Limited. p. 231. ISBN 978-93-5305-618-6.
Bhindranwale was a militant religious leader and the leader of the Khalistani Movement
- "Who is Iqbal Singh Lalpura, ex-cop who arrested Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale and newest member of BJP's top body?". Firstpost. 2022-08-17.
- 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)
- Find multiple scholarly sources which say that Jarnail was not a militant. You are removing this commonly accepted fact for years[2] and you are alone with this blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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)
- Absolutely a militant. I note that I wasn't pinged in this discussion, and same with Kautilya3 who also happened to restore the so-called 'label'. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:11, 2 September 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 [3] @Srijanx22: @Accesscrawl: @Sapedder: --Elephanthunter (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
- Elephanthunter, 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 Srijanx22 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 [4] (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,[5] 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)
- Further to this point, I have warned Srijanx22 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)