Talk:Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2020

There has been much misinformation, facts completely removed and instead false, misleading info given to tarnish the image of this legend 173.181.42.114 (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was not part of any terrorist group. The only group he was part of was to help his fellow Sikh people and gain independence to build a separate state for the Sikhs because for many years Sikhs always had been mistreated and looked at the wrong way. India didn’t care once for it Sikh people. So that why Bhindranwale started a group. He was a great leader who helped many people who weren’t fully Sikhs to become gurSikhs -(guru’s Sikh). There are so many videos on YouTube and books to buy online on him and from those videos and books he seems to be a peaceful holy man, which he was. People mislead him as a terrorist because of his long beard, turban, and a knife in his hand. He was not a terrorist. He was a really great leader and a saint. In Sikhism, keeping a long beard and uncut hair shows respect to God and the Gurus. The small knife is a sign of protection. If anyone was in trouble in any situation and there was no police to save, them the Sikhs would step in and sacrifice their life for others. 2601:204:D302:C400:D5CB:9D79:249F:4BDF (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The description is backed up with multiple references. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2020

Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale wasn’t part of any terrorist group. The only group he was part of was to help gain independence to build a separate state for the Sikhs because for many years in India, Sikhs were mistreated and looked at in a wrong way. India didn’t care once for its Sikh population nor did the same to the Muslims population. Gandhi didn’t like either of them only the Hindus because he was one. And many other leaders in India were most the same and also life as a Sikh in India was really hard. So that why Bhindranwale started a group with his Sikhs to build Khalistan and also the group helped many poor families in Punjab during the hard times for the Sikhs. Many looked at them as heroes. Khalistansikh10 (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

|answered= no False Accusation of Terrorism

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was leader of Damdami Taksal. Damdami Taksal is Sikh educational university. Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was arrested only once by Punjab Police and no charges were laid by police. Till today there is no law or act passed by parliament in India which can be used to convict person as terrorist. Afzal Guru was given capital punishment under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), however POTA was never passed^[97] by Indian Parliament. There is no conviction of terrorism or any charges laid on Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala in relation to terrorism. He is remembered by Sikhs as Martyr. There is no ruling, judgement of any court that mentioned Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as Terrorist.

[1]

References

Gurjit mehroke (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Is this a Twitter or Reddit thing? In the possibly vain hope that the next solicited editor might actually read these responses before posting the next near-identical request:

1. The existence of lack thereof of a criminal conviction is not a necessary component to characterizing an article subject. Many, many, terrorists are never convicted since they die in the course of the action that results in their being described as "terrorists".
2. The article does not actually label him a "terrorist" Our policy on this is quite clear: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. Despite what you may have read elsewhere, Wikipedia takes no position on this.
3. It does say: "...he is widely regarded in India as a terrorist." Our policy on this is equally clear: Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects
4. This is what reliable secondary sources say. This is verifiable by the links given, as another of our core policies demands

Further request to "stop calling him a terrorist" will be similarly rejected. Arguments based on special pleading that the community he once belonged to regards him differently and therefore he can't be called a terrorist will be discarded immediately.

Simply version: We don't call him a terrorist. We say that many Indians think he was a terrorist. This is a significant difference. This is also a verifiable reflection of what reliable sources say.

I hope this helps clear up any confusion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

References

This page is about Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. This is not about what majority think of Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale. If there is a place of what majority think about Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale then there must be a place for what minority think of him as a Sikh Leader. It wont be impartial to emphasize one view and disregard the another view.

I understand many terrorist die in action without conviction. Eg Osama Bin Laden, American Govt declared him terrorist and killed him. He was on the most wanted list of FBI. This information is displayed on Wikepedia Website. The edit I suggested simply forwarding the point that he was not on any terror list or most wanted list of any country and if he is then brought up the evidence of such information. So this is very biased approach to ignore the principal of neutrality and impartiality when Eggishorn commented above :

and :Further request to "stop calling him a terrorist" will be similarly rejected. Arguments based on special pleading that the community he once belonged to regards him differently and therefore he can't be called a terrorist will be discarded immediately.

Further Eggishorn says that we dont call him terrorist. But my edit is for adding separate paragh which is also another view held by many.

Source of information is its common knowledge in public domain and also Wikepedia "Damdami Taksal Page" too.

I look forward to have my paragh added.

15:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Gurjit mehroke (talk)

@Gurjit mehroke:, your request violates all three of the Core Content Policies and therefore cannot be added. Please read, understand, and follow these policies before making further requests. Thank you for your understanding. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

False Accusation of Terrorism

False Accusation of Terrorism

Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was leader of Damdami Taksal. Damdami Taksal is Sikh educational university. Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale was arrested only once by Punjab Police and no charges were laid by police. Till today there is no law or act passed by parliament in India which can be used to convict person as terrorist. Afzal Guru was given capital punishment under Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (POTA), however POTA was never passed^[97] by Indian Parliament. There is no conviction of terrorism or any charges laid on Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwala in relation to terrorism. He was not even on wanted list of any Indian agency. He is remembered by Sikhs as Martyr. There is no ruling, judgement of any court that mentioned Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as Terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurjit mehroke (talk • contribs) 04:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

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,
  • Sathananthan, S.M.; Lalwani, K.T.; Iyengar, S. Raghunath; Mansukhani; Bhatnagar, Asha; Godbole, V. S.; Singh, Hukham (1983). Hindu-Sikh Conflict in Punjab: Causes and Cure (Report). 8 Ashen Grove, London, SW 19: Transatlantic India Times. {{cite report}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: location (link)

    which, as far as I can figure, is just a pamphlet, published by a group of diasporic Sikhs (see listing here under the Pamphlet, books, manifestos, etc., by diaspora Sikh organizations and individuals).This work has been cited a dozen times in the new version.

  • Cibotti, John P. (March 22, 2017). "Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale: A Charismatic Authority and His Ideology". FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. doi:10.25148/etd.FIDC001784. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help))

    which is a MA thesis. As specified at WP:SCHOLARSHIP and oft discussed at RSN, with rare exceptions not applicable here, masters-level work is not usable as a source on wikipedia. Cibotti 2017 has been cited 60+ times

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)