Revision as of 15:07, 7 October 2022

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 17:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Srijanx22 (talk · contribs)
• Sapedder (talk · contribs)
• Chomskywala (talk · contribs)
• Elephanthunter (talk · contribs)
• Accesscrawl (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The main issue is that User:Srijanx22 is repeatedly and deliberately adding content that directly contradicts several sources in the long-standing stable version, specifically that the subject was a "leading figure" of a secessionist movement, when several reliable sources in the lead alone clearly state otherwise. This has been brought to their attention repeatedly in the talk page, but there is a fixed refusal to acknowledge the matter, much less balance the two views per NPOV.

• In addition, the edit adds a few redundancies to the lead, and screws it up from a compositional perspective, which also seems inconsequential to the user.

• The full attempt at a discussion is available on the talk page under *Lead*, if it is not too crazy-making.

• This noticeboard was also recommended earlier by a couple of admins at AN/EW: RegentsPark C.Fred

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

], ]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Restoring neutral wording to the beginning of the page lead, giving both sides equal representation as the long-standing version had, not unilaterally declaring one viewpoint by ignoring the other. It has been explained to this user repeatedly that their edits are directly contradicted by several reliable sources in the lead alone, and requires balance, but to no avail. Possibly having neutral editors help formulate this, maybe based on the pre-dispute version if it is found suitable.

Summary of dispute by Srijanx22

The main argument is entirely about the word "militant" on the first sentence which is perfectly valid per WP:LABEL and is backed by multiple reliable sources. I don't think participation by other editors is necessary because this is a pretty simple dispute and has been mostly between me and the OP. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale discussion

• Volunteer Note There have been more than 2 people involved in this discussion. All involved must be invited to participate here. Please tag them above and place a notice on all of their pages. To other volunteers- there has been significant discussion on the talk page over a prolonged period of time. It has been borderline personal- but not ANI level as of yet. Appears to be good candidate once all are tagged to participate. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nightenbelle, what would be the threshold for inclusion here? Chomskywala (who initiated the discussion) and perhaps Elephanthunter were the only ones to contribute meaningfully in terms of discussion volume and/or explanation to warrant participation imo, beyond random unelaborated yeses and noes. Currently both seem sporadically active, but I can certainly message them. Sapedder (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Invite anyone who has contributed to the discussion- but they do not all have to participate for this to continue. But they should be offered the opportunity. Nightenbelle (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have messaged the contributors. Sapedder (talk) 04:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

To moderators and observers, just a suggestion, maybe for later: in order to keep things focused and avoid muddying the waters, perhaps we can discuss each clause in isolation, as these are two distinct assertions anyway. The first being a) the primary issue, "leading figure of Khalistan movement ," a cursory tertiary claim directly contradicted by several in-depth, reliable secondary sources; and then any issues with b) "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" and the flaws and redundancies that this introduces which have been explained ad nauseum. This may facilitate things imo. Sapedder (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on JSB

I am opening this dispute for moderated discussion. First, please read the usual mediation rules. Be civil and concise. Overly long posts do not clarify the disagreement. Overly long posts may be collapsed, and the poster may be asked to summarize. Uncivil posts will be collapsed. I do not claim to be an expert on the modern history of South Asia, but I will expect the editors to provide me with any background information that I need. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in the space provided for the purpose. Address your comments to the moderator (me) as representative of the community.

There are two principal parties to this discussion. If any other editors join, they are welcome to participate. Every editor is expected to read this noticeboard at least every 48 hours and reply at least every 48 hours. If you will need a break from the discussion, you may ask to have the discussion put on hold. Otherwise you are expected to respond.

The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they either want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that another editors wants changed. (I think I know, but I am asking anyway.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors on JSB

Frankly, what I would want doesn't differ much from the long-standing version of the lead some weeks ago. The end of the lead was specifically designated for the two widely divergent narratives on the subject, but wasn't too strident either way in terms of proclaiming what he was or wasn't, or wanted or didn't want; it simply states the difference in opinions, presents the sources, and respects the reader enough to let them make up their own mind. From a compositional perspective, one starts with staid, objective facts, then progressively builds upon them, not with such sweeping proclamations which so easily invite contradiction and instability. Any additional sources could be added there in the ending para, which then leads to further detail in the main body. That would be the only real change I would put forth from the long-standing version, that the sources simply be added to the respective viewpoints already equally represented in the closing of the lead (though at the risk of WP:OVERKILL, as there are a number of sources already which essentially say the same thing). Sapedder (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was obviously a 'militant' per his participation in Operation Blue Star and the sources I provided here. The opening sentence must say he was a "militant" just like Misplaced Pages calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on lead. JSB was the key figure of Khalistan movement. These are just facts and should be preserved on lead. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator on JSB

The purpose of content dispute resolution is to improve the article. This means that we need to be clear about what words in the article are in dispute. Read Be Specific at DRN. One of you has been specific, and one has not. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Based on the specific reply, it appears that the issue is whether to identify the subject, Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale, as a "militant". We have to identify him in a way that he has been described by reliable sources that is consistent with the neutral point of view. It would appear that his supporters would have identified him as a "freedom fighter" and his enemies would have identified him as a "terrorist", and neither of those would be consistent with neutral point of view. If there is objection to calling him a "militant", please specify what you think the article should say, and why.

Do either of the editors have any other specific issues about the wording of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors on JSB

The main issue is that there is a unilateral attempt to refer to the subject as "leading figure of Khalistan movement ", when clearly this is contradicted by several reliable secondary sources already present, brought to attention, and repeatedly ignored (something to note is that the sources stating this are mostly aged tertiary sources, which tend to recycle the same few lines of uncritical hearsay anyway). This absolutely does not belong in the opening, as it is reliably disputed by arguably better sources, so I do think I'm being a bit magnanimous by simply requiring NPOV and balance. Again, I would say there are two sub-debates here as to the wording.

And as anyone who has read the talk discussions will have noted over and over, the problem is that the phrase "militant leader of the Damdami Taksal" makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant organization, which it is not. The problem has never been the word "militant" per se, it already exists twice in the lead as "militant cadre/leader of militancy," as can be seen in the long-standing version I would point to as to what the article should say (the dispute has been limited to the first paragraph of the lead, but the rest of the lead should also be taken into consideration). So yet another shoehorned inclusion, which disregards/mischaracterizes a historic institution, is careless and inaccurate. This has pointedly never been addressed, and it must be to get anywhere. Sapedder (talk) 23:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator on JSB

Read Be Specific at DRN. If an editor wants a change made to the wording of the article, they should state exactly what they want changed.

Sapedder states that there are two sub-debates as to wording. Please state exactly what sentences you want changed. If Srijanx22 wants any specific portions of the article changed, please state what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Third statements by editors on JSB

• To be clear: Remove (a) "leading figure of Khalistan movement ." Not NPOV, contradicted by several secondary sources right in the lead (some are shown here at the very end of the section in green talk quote blocks). These divergent viewpoints are already adequately described at the end of the lead.
• Remove (b) "militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal." This wording wrongly makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant group, and this creates a redundancy in the paragraph ("Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" and "prominent orthodox Sikh historical institution Damdami Taksal." Latter is more correct anyway).

To reiterate, remove "...was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement. He..." as per the pre-dispute wording, as statement (a) is not NPOV and statement (b) mischaracterizes an institution with its flawed wording. The attached tertiary "citation" is not even properly formatted to boot. Sapedder (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• "militant leader" should be retained. It is supported by many reliable sources. The opening sentence needs to be clear that he was a "militant" just like Misplaced Pages calls Osama bin Laden, Anders Behring Breivik a 'terrorist' on the opening sentence.

JSB was the key figure of Khalistan movement, so "leading figure of Khalistan movement" is also entirely correct. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator on JSB

Sapedder has now stated what they want removed. Please indicate what you want added in its place. Please also explain why the wording should be changed. Srijanx22 is saying that the existing wording is all right, so they are asked whether they want any other changes made to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statements by editors on JSB

Why the wording should be changed:

• "Leading figure of Khalistan movement ," should be removed because it is contradicted by several reliable secondary sources, which state that the subject never even endorsed the idea of a separate state, much less headed a supposed movement for it at the time, even openly rejecting it. Some of these are reproduced below:

The current wording violates WP:NPOV ("Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts.") and WP:BALANCE. It is an aging claim made by tertiary sources, which certainly do not trump secondary ones. Instead of insisting on one view or the other, both should be presented in a balanced, nuanced way (as they already are at the end of the lead).

• The wording "militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" should be removed because it falsely makes the Damdami Taksal sound like a militant/separatist/political group. It also creates careless redundancies in the paragraph: "Sikh organization Damdami Taksal" vs the more correct "prominent orthodox Sikh historical institution Damdami Taksal," as well as the word "militant/militancy" itself, which are already in the lead.

What is requested in its place:

• I am not requesting that anything new be added in place of the content to be removed, simply that the long-standing, pre-dispute neutral wording be restored: Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: ; 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 national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash. Sapedder (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Sapedder seems to be thinking that the sentence "leading figure of Khalistan movement" is the same as saying "the person who was leading the Khalistan movement". Bhinderanwale is called a key figure of Khalistan movement because that is how he is treated by those of Khalistan movement. I have already provided enough sources just above here which support that Bhinderanwale was the key figure of this movement and why "militant" word should be retained. Here is another scholarly source which says "Within a few years Bhindranwale developed his own power base quite apart from the Congress ( I ) and began to emerge as the key figure in the Sikh separatist movement that was demanding a new independent state for Sikhs in the Punjab, an independent state to be known as "Khalistan" (the "Land of the Khalsa" or the "Land of the Pure"). He and his followers took control of the Sikh Golden Temple and the Akal Takht (the "Eternal Tower"), the central shrine and symbol of the Sikh faith, in Amritsar early in 1984, stockpiling huge caches of weapons and apparently preparing for armed insurrection." I only want the tag bombing done here to be reverted. Everything else seems fine on the article. Srijanx22 (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator About JSB

The following is what I think the two editors want about the lede. I would like them to verify that I have restated correctly what they are asking.

Sapedder asks that the lede say:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: ; 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 national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.

Srijanx22 asks that the lede be left at:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: ; born Jarnail Singh Brar; 2 June 1947– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement. He was not an advocate of Khalistan. 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.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I will note that we should minimize any use of terminology that will be viewed either as positively loaded or negatively loaded. I am not at this point commenting on what I see as the connotations of those wordings, but would like to verify that that is what the editors are saying. Each editor may also make an additional one-paragraph statement.

Srijanx22 also says that they want the tag-bombing reverted. I see one tag on the article, which is a neutrality tag. The neutrality tag will be removed when this dispute is resolved. If there any other tagging issues, please state very briefly what they are. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: There is not just one tag but two more tags that were added here. One at top of page and two on lead as "dubious" and "inconsistent". They should be reverted as well. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statements by Editors About JSB

In regards to terminology, yes, this is exactly what I have asked for: as clear, unsensationalized and NPOV as possible. Anything else just invites perpetual conflict and page instability. Something I want to reiterate is that my version is the long-standing stable version, and hence should be treated as the default. The changed version is the current incoherent mess:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: ; born Jarnail Singh Brar; 2 June 1947– 6 June 1984) was a militant leader of the Sikh organization Damdami Taksal and the leading figure of Khalistan movement. He was not an advocate of Khalistan. 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.

• The phrases in bold italics completely contradict each other, hence tags.
• The phrases in bold are redundancies. This is on top of the mischaracterization of the Damdami Taksal as a political/militant group of the first instance (and the redundancy of that word throughout the lead), which has been highlighted ad nauseum.

The fourth statement trying to defend this is also incoherent. Apparently, being a "leading figure of a movement" doesn't mean exactly that, it now means that he has posthumously come to symbolize a movement to its followers, or something (even though he never espoused it). But instead of writing anything like that (the end of the lead already covers that anyway), this specific wording and placement is rigidly insisted upon. This is just semantic plausible deniability.

To mangle the lead so badly, introduce so many faults in composition, let alone neutrality, and consider it just fine, is just a complete lack of regard for improving the content or writing quality of the page, as long as some loaded buzzwords are jammed into the first sentence at any cost. All obvious POV like this must be purged per the long-standing version. Sapedder (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statement by Moderator About JSB

I agree with Srijanx22Sapedder that the current version of the lede is arguing with itself. Srijanx22Sapedder has proposed to revert to the previous version of the lede. Does anyone else have an alternate proposal that respects neutral point of view and is free of internal contradictions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Sixth Statements by Editors About JSB

Slight mixup here, I was the one that proposed reverting to the previous version and brought up the POV+contradictions, just to clarify. Yes, the previous version is coherent and satisfies NPOV. Sapedder (talk) 03:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Moderator About JSB

I have made a correction. Each editor is asked to make another brief statement that does not repeat what has already been said. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: You haven't made the correction at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fifth_Statement_by_Moderator_About_JSB. My preferred version (which you have laid out) still has tags but I opted for a pre-tag version which is here. Srijanx22 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statements by Editors About JSB

I would like Robert McClenon to explain how the lead is "arguing with itself". The two statements that JSB was a militant and a key figure of Khalistan movement are entirely valid. I would be superfine if the lead is simply: "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was an Indian militant and a key figure of Khalistan movement." Srijanx22 (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

It's rather obvious that it's arguing with itself, to anyone engaging in good faith. So is this doubling down on obvious POV that is their seventh statement. I'd be "superfine" with the opposite POV statement. Obviously that would also create a neutrality problem, so all POV must go.

As to a brief statement, I would simply say that it it imperative that the lead is as restrained and unsensational with wording as possible, in either direction. The article before this had been relatively stable for the last year and a half or so, partly due to its careful wording that does not proclaim any POV as undisputed, thus not inviting constant counter-edits and conflict. The page's long-term history reflects this need; it is partly due to the long-standing lead (which was fashioned after months of collaboration) that it was possible for the page to finally be as stable for as long as it was, prior to this dispute.

I also note that there was no response here from the other party for over 72 hours, despite being active during that time, and being aware of replying within 48 hours. They have not offered any involved reasonings or reasonable alternatives, beyond essentially repeating over and over "it's sourced" (as the opposite is) or "I want it" (which is irrelevant). Sapedder (talk) 23:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I was involved in reverting on this article as well as discussion on talk page and I am surprised that I was not notified but 2 others with no contribution into this particular dispute for more than 1 month were. My view is that while Sapedder wants to preserve a JSB follower's POV on lead, the version to which Srijanx22 and several other editors have reverted to is clearly more encyclopedic. If there should be any significant change then it must go through RfC and if Sapedder wants to bludgeon and falsely accuse others of POV without any evidence then he should be reported for his misconduct because this WP:IDHT on Sapedder's part is apparently incredible. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Eighth Statement by Moderator on JSB

Does User:Accesscrawl want to take part in the discussion here, or do they think that progress can be made at the article talk page if I put this moderated discussion on hold? If they wish to take part in the discussion here, I will ask them to read the ground rules, and to comment on article content, not contributors. This is an article content forum. Conduct is not discussed here; often the resolution of content issues causes any conduct issues to subside. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The lede says that JSB was the leading figure of the Khalistan movement. It then says that he was not an advocate of Khalistan. That looks to me as if it is arguing with itself.

Assuming that we will continuing discussion here with an additional editor, I will ask each editor to state exactly what they want changed in the lede section (or what they want left the same). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Eighth Statements by Editors on JSB

"He was not an advocate of Khalistan" was added by Sapedder here together with tag bombing. I have already asked to revert that edit. I would be fine with a lead that simply state the facts. I am making two proposals as follow:

I am fine with either version and have added additional sources in both proposals. Srijanx22 (talk) 08:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

As from the very beginning, as in the talk discussion, first statement, and fifth statement, I have been asking for the neutral long-term lead to be restored:

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale (Punjabi: ; 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 national attention after his involvement in the 1978 Sikh-Nirankari clash.

The talk page discussion has long since been at a gridlock, and imo Accesscrawl did not make meaningful contribution there "in terms of discussion volume and/or explanation to warrant participation" as I had explained earlier, beyond simply "I want that" in terms of defending POV, which has also been the "contribution" here so far. If every one-sentence unelaborated yes/no there is added, it is not equitable to those who had been deeply participating at length there.

In my version, there is no room for any POV. As explained in the edit summary, "not an advocate of Khalistan" is a stopgap measure meant to both balance the skewed claims on the article pending resolution, and b) show the hypocrisy with POV:

These "proposals" are completely unworkable, and fully reveal the problem: They want a heavily sourced statement ("not an advocate") they don't like deleted without explanation, while their own POV ("leading figure" which is arguably less credible due to only using tertiary sources with the same recycled statements) is insisted upon. Again, only the long-standing lead I have always proposed is actually free of all POV. Anything else is simply seeking to strategically place POV buzzwords, as opposed to improving the encyclopedia with a nuanced take. Sapedder (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

• I am in support of the lead proposed by Srijanx22, especially the "Proposal 1". I don't find Sapedder's lead to be meeting WP:LEAD because this type of description is not supported by scholarly sources. They introduce Bhindranwale as a militant/terrorist and a major figure of Khalistan movement than any "jathedar" of "Damdami Taksal" which is far from being a "prominent orthodox Sikh religious institution". Accesscrawl (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ninth statement by moderator on JSB

I think that Srijanx22 and Sapedder are defining what they want in the lede paragraph. If User:Accesscrawl has a proposal for the lede, please present it. I am also asking each editor to state what specifically they dislike about any proposals made by another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Are there any other parts of the article that are in dispute besides the wording of the lede?

Ninth statements by editors on JSB

No, just the beginning of the lede is in dispute.

The crux of the matter: "leading figure," "key figure" etc. these are just trivial semantic substitutions meant to continue to insist singularly on involvement in the "Khalistan movement;" that is clearly what it reads, and is meant to read. The less nuance there is, the better it is to suit this purpose. Reliable sources, some of which were mentioned earlier, clearly state the opposite, that he not only never asked for it, let alone "lead" it, but denied it, so nothing like this can be stated sweepingly, point blank, per WP:BALANCE. This is along with the general unencyclopedic language being added, and need for a restrained, professional style, mentioned earlier. POV of course only invites more POV and thus conflict, there should be no such categorical assertions that are so easily contradicted.

"Not an advocate" was placed with all the sources attached to render those sources no longer avoidable or ignored; if there was any "IDHT" going on, it was constantly ignoring these sources in talk to assert involvement in the Khalistan movement. The fact is that he never even asked for it, with reliable sources better than tertiary ones at that. The two statements are contradictory and thus linked; there is no removing "not an advocate" without also removing "leading figure," hence my proposal, the balanced, long-standing lead. "Leading figure" or any slight variation thereof, cannot stand.

This noticeboard has already been fruitful in that an impartial, ideologically neutral moderating editor (the presence of whom was/is necessary) quickly saw the issue of contradiction that others may be simply refusing to. Sapedder (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Tenth Statement by Moderator on JSB

It appears that the two versions of the lede acceptable to Srijanx22 both refer to JSB as a militant. It appears that the version that is acceptable to Sapedder does not refer to JSB as a militant. Is that correct? Is it the use of the word 'militant' that the parties cannot agree on? Is that correct? Are there any other points of disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Tenth Statements by Editors on JSB

The chief disagreement would be linking him to the Khalistan movement in the first sentence, clearly trying to categorically declare active leadership/participation/"figure" in this movement, when it is reliably cited with superior secondary sources that he never even asked for it, much less participated in such a movement, which was arguably not even really a ground reality until after his death. No categorical declarations towards one side or the other, that violates NPOV, no matter how "right" it feels. Can't be declared to be a figure of a movement he was not a part of, which is reliably sourced, really that simple. For both this and for "militant," it certainly requires more nuance than can be fit in one deliberately placed, lazy hitjob of a sentence. Sapedder (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• I have already proposed 2 versions of the lead. Either should stay. To say that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale "can't be declared to be a figure of a movement he was not a part of" is misleading because he does not have to be a part of the movement to become its figure. Syama Prasad Mukherjee for a name, died 27 years before Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) was born, but BJP considers him to be the founder of its party. Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is a central figure in Khalistan movement. It is not for Misplaced Pages to indulge in No True Scotsman fallacy. Srijanx22 (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Eleventh Statement by Moderator on JSB

It appears that there are at least two issues about the lede of the article. The first is whether JSB should be referred to as a "militant". Srijanx22 agrees with this characterization; Sapedder disagrees with the characterization.

The second issue is that Sapedder appears to object to identifying JSB as a leader of the Khalistan movement, and Srijanx22 says that he should continue to be so identified.

Are these the two article content issues? If so, the moderator has two more questions. Robert McClenon (talk)

The first follow-up question is for Sapedder. If JSB should not be characterized as a leader of the Khalistan movement, how should he be identified?

The second follow-up question is for both editors. Is a compromise possible, to identify JSB as a leader of the Khalistan movement, without using the label "militant"? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement 11.1 by Moderator on JSB

It appears that User:Sapedder and User:Srijanx22 have not edited in the past 48 hours. The rules said that each editor should check on the status of the case at least every 48 hours. I will keep this case open for at least 24 hours, but not more than 72 hours. If I close it due to lack of response, the parties will be expected to resolve their issues either by discussion or by RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement 11.2 by Moderator on JSB

It appears that User:Srijanx22 has not edited in the past four days. The rules said that each editor should check on the status of the case at least every 48 hours. If they do not respond within about 24 hours, I will close this case, with a recommendation that Sapedder may edit the article as they have discussed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Eleventh Statements by Editors on JSB

Excuse the delay.

It is not that I don't necessarily want the subject referred to as a militant, it is that the lead already does, multiple times and at suitable junctures, so it is redundant and deliberately leaves no room for discussion in the first sentence, hence why I want it gone from there. What I do want removed entirely from the lead is this phrase "leading figure of Khalistan movement" or any equally weaselly variants thereof, which clearly seeks to deliberately imply active leadership and support for Khalistan, while hiding behind plausible deniability. What is a clear statement is that he did not support Khalistan; as that is clearly citable, this phrase has no place here. As recognized, they contradict and are mutually exclusive.

Regarding the tenth statement response, this is just the latest equivalency that betrays a feeble understanding of the subject. JSB did not lead or create the movement which predated his public life, or any forerunner movement to it, he did nothing to actively advance it. This "Mukherjee" did not ever disavow the subsequent BJP or its ideology, like JSB disavowed Khalistan. Invoking "no true Scotsman" makes no sense here either. We have multiple sources clearly stating that he wasn't a Scotsman at all, so to speak, no matter how much one wants to believe otherwise.

Regarding the first follow-up question, what the subject should be referred to is the leader of a historic institution, Damdami Taksal, per the longstanding lead, which is a good base upon which to build further information. This is what he was during the whole time he was in public eye, and is completely free of any subjective labels, positive or negative. On the other hand, the only armed action the subject took was at the very end of his life. So it is clear which descriptor sets a better base for the article, in terms of both information and tone.

Regarding the second follow-up question, there is more chance of a compromise involving the converse being possible. The phrase "figure of Khalistan movement" needs to go, that I am firm on. I can then make a proposal with what is left. There two given "proposals" so far are not proposals, they are simply superficial rewordings with no meaningful change in content. Sapedder (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

• I still find explanations by Sapedder to be unconvincing. JSB has been frequently called a "terrorist" by reliable sources thus "militant" label is perfectly valid. "figure of Khalistan movement" is also valid because sources do not claim that JSB was not an influential figure of Khalistan movement. I have already provided sources which treat support it. Now see Operation Blue Star, where JSB was a prominent militant, is also unanimously treated as part of Khalistan movement by reliable sources, and they also note that "after his death in the Operation Blue Star, Jarnail Singh Bindranwale was honoured as the first martyr of Khalistan". Furthermore, it does not matter what "JSB disavowed" even if he did. David Duke also claims that he is not a white supremacist, but it doesn't mean we will remove that from the lead of David Duke. Srijanx22 (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-forth discussion on JSB

Pellumb Xhufi

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute
Articles about Greek-Albanian history and demographics, in particular the use of works by the specific author (so far) in:

• Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572
• Himara Revolt of 1596
• Epirus revolt of 1611
• Albanians in Greece
• Petros Lantzas
• Parga
• Margariti
• Delvinë

Users involved

• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Çerçok (talk · contribs)
• Alltan (talk · contribs)
• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)
• ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk · contribs)
• SilentResident (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There have been a lot of problems in Greek-Albanian history topics regarding the use of Albanian politician and historian Pellumb Xhufi as reference. While ostensibly an academic, he has been repeatedly criticized for "aggressive nationalistic tone", "nationally one-sided scientific articles", "nationalist polemics", by various scholars. Controversial would be anything that is typically controversial (e.g. ethnicity, demographics), especially in relation to other available sources.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Petros_Lantzas#Alternative_views
• Talk:Anti-Ottoman_revolts_of_1565–1572)
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At a recently RSN case filled by user:Khirurg Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi the issue was proposed to be brought here in order to be assessed by uninvolved third-parties. The main question here is if an author that is widely involved in nationalist narrative both in his works but also in local news and TV shows can be used as wp:RS in wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

While publications in peer reviewed journals are considered reliable no matter the author, in this case serious issues arise regarding the use of works by Xhufi that are published by publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear. Their use remains problematic - and certainly non- wp:RS- because of the following major issues:

• 1. In collective academic works about the quality of Balkan-related historiography:

• Ramet, Sabrina P.; Simkus, Albert; Listhaug, Ola (1 February 2015). Civic and Uncivic Values in Kosovo: History, Politics, and Value Transformation. Central European University Press. ISBN 978-963-386-074-8. O.J. Schmitt of the Austrian Academy of Science (by the way a non-Balkan himself) reads:

p. 726: institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressive-nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi), which in both cases hardly shows any signs of self-reflection. Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion.

p. 726: In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric

p. 726: Xhufi also published rich material, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays

• Albania and Greece: Understanding and Explaining (PDF). Albanian Istitute for International Studies (Friedriech Ebert Stiftung). 2018., historian Konstantinos Giakoumis provides the following information on the subject:

p. 144: "The dominance of ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatusis apparently not a trait of some Albanian historiographical works (cf. Xhufi 2009; Karagjozi-Kore 2014), but also of Greek historiography.

• 2. There have been also critiques on Xhufi's methodology and interpretation of primary material.

• Historian K. Giakoumis states: (])

p. 173: According to the Albanian historian Pellumb Xhufi, who misinterpreted Ottoman registers and a Greek chronicle, Dropull was colonized by Greeks not earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth century.

• linguist D. Kyriazis reads ] (translation here: ]):

Xhufi 2016 (Arbërit e Jonit) in order to prove that the Greek-speaking pockets in south Albania are due to relatively recent settlements of populations that came from parts of present-day Greece, linguistic data are systematically bypassed or selectively used,

• O.J. Schmitt: ], translation here: ],

"Xhufi's , Dilemat e Arberit, 2006, offers partly nationalistic polemics against Greek historiography".

• Another lengthy and detailed critique by D. Kyriazis (in Albanian).

• Xhufi has also been criticized by Albanian scholars for falsifying primary sources .

• 3. Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows:

• there is a particularly troubling editorial by Xhufi in a Kosovo newspaper ; it is boilerplate Balkan nationalism: Conspiracies, demographic purity, Greeks in Albania are paid agents of the Greek government, etc. In general this is not the narrative of a neutral historical but a typical narrative for internal national consumption. Similar decelerations are made also here ].

• He has further made wild claims that including ethnicity in the 2011 Albanian census will "turn Albania into another Lebanon" (obviously nothing of the sort has happened) , that doing so was selling out to Greek interests, and claimed on live tv that the Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is a "secret Albanian", apparently because his last name bears a similarity with an Albanian word .

• Xhufi is publicly calling for the expulsion of local religious leader, Anastasios of the Albanian Orthodox Church, because he is not part of the national project: ] (p. 725) & ]

• 4. At the presentation of his book "Arbërit e Joni" (here ] (which has created hot debates in various discussions in wiki) the usual polemics are also dominant, declaring that:

“Greeks are manipulating history” & history should be “re-written again from scratch”, “everything down to Preveza is part of the Albanian habitat since the medieval age.”

• 5. Xhufi's statements about communist-era concentration camps in Albania received also negative critiques:

] Pellumb Xhufi has angered scholars and the descendant of survivors of an infamous labour camp by claiming the conditions there were ‘not bad’.

His historical narrative differs only slightly from that of the authoritarian (pre-1991) regime of the P.R. of Albania: ] (p. 65). Also modern Albanian officials do not hesitate to accuse him of taking the post of history professor during the People's Republic era: ].

Xhufi is an active politician, former deputy minister in his country who frequently appears on local tv shows and displays nationalist rhetoric. Scholarship and news have heavily criticized his research. From my experience in wikipedia there were several less partisan cases of authors that were dismissed for not meeting wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Çerçok

Summary of dispute by Alltan

Summary of dispute by Ktrimi991

Summary of dispute by Khirurg

I agree with Alexikoua that this is a pressing issue that needs to be resolved. I also agree with him regarding the criticisms of Xhufi. I do not think he should be used to source anything controversial. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ

It is patently clear that the insertion of Xhufi into a growing list of Balkan-related articles is part of a concerted POV push, and therefore a constant source of friction. The project would benefit greatly if editors simply restricted themselves to reliable sources, preferably those published in English, and refrained from inflaming tensions by citing activist authors like Xhufi, who is controversial for all the reasons outlined by Alexikoua above. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SilentResident

Pellumb Xhufi has to be addressed for his reliability because he is being cited in a growing number of articles, without wp:consensus. I would like to point out that the English Misplaced Pages already has a content guideline explaining when a source may be considered as wp:unreliable: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.. Since Xhufi is known for having a poor reputation for fact-checking, for historical revisionism (see wp:pseudoscience), and is also known for espousing extremist views. IMO, Misplaced Pages ought to bar citing him in the following cases: 1) when a topic area is sensitive and related to these ethnicities that were subject to Xhufi's extremist views, and, 2) when no third-party sources could wp:verify Xhufi's claims, 3) when there is no wp:consensus for using him. Currently, all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines have been violated, and Xhufi is remaining on all of these aforementioned articles despite wp:consensus policy stating that: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. I am hopeful the DRN can help resolve the dispute around Xhufi's reliability, because the RSN didn't help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi discussion

Zeroth Statement by Moderator on Pellumb Xhufi

I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion. This will be somewhat different from other matters that I have moderated, so the rules and procedures will be somewhat different. I have two questions for the editors, both for those who have responded to the notice and for any other editors. First, do the editors agree that there is an issue about the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi? Second, are there any other issues? Answer the questions in the space below. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to me as the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. If there is agreement, I will then create a subpage for this discussion and provide a set of rules for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth Statements by Editors on Pellumb Xhufi

• Yes I do agree. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

I am providing a subpage for this discussion. It is at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi . All further discussion should be conducted there. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the question is whether and when the writings of Pellumb Xhufi are considered a reliable source. Please read the policy on reliable sources again. Please also read the rules. Editors are responsible for compliance with the rules.

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided. Elsewhere, address your comments to the moderator and the community.

I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the source reliability issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

MSNBC

Closed due to insufficient discussion on the talk page. We cannot take cases where parties have not made a good faith effort to discuss and solve on their own first- and this case is not an exception to that rule. There are other dispute resolution options that are open to you- the most appropriate at this time being WP:RFC to get more eyes on the question. Also May1787- you are warned that you have ventured way too far into POV pushing with your rant about the connection between the US Government and media. This is WP:FRINGE and has no place on this board. Your rant has nothing to do with the question we are examining- it is pure POV pushing and is inappropriate. Stay away from that reasoning in future discussions of this issue please. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards