Talk:Lucky Bisht

Somebody has tampered with this page and I want the admin to save this page from being deleted and pay attention to it

• Keep:Lucky Bisht is a notable personality in India. The article has enough references which are independent and reliable.

Powerfultample (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Keep: Searching the name of the lucky Bisht in Google brings up a lot of articles, Google says that Lucky Bisht is a notable person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabutiger123 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone has interacted with this page and I request the administrator to save this page bc'z lucky bisht is an notable and anthentic person of india. Admin you must pay attention to me once

thankyou 2401:4900:30DF:31CD:DE7C:69E9:1FCA:CB (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no "Commando" rank in the Indian Army. DKBlaze (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The year of birth is shown as 1988, and service period is shown as 2003-18. Does it mean he joined service at the age of only 15...? Something is certainly wrong since Indian Armed forces or paramilitary forces doesn't employ children below age of 18. 2409:40E2:2013:C52F:24BE:6AFF:FEDF:648 (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Title. I am fairly sure that there has been a consistent ring of editors operating around this article. It needs to be rewritten badly by someone willing to do it.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to raise a concern regarding repeated reverts made by User:Kingsmasher678. The removed content is supported by multiple reliable and independent news sources. Reverting sourced content repeatedly without addressing the reliability of the references may not help improve the article.

If there are specific concerns about particular sources, they should be identified and discussed here so the article can be improved in accordance with Wikipedia’s sourcing and content policies. ~2026-16458-40 (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you may have a misunderstanding of what reliable source means for Wikipedia. Something isn't credible just because it is published by the New York Times, in particular if that source is from the editorials or opinion section. Most of the sources that you are asserting are reliable are based on interviews with Bisht or, more commonly, claims pulled from the book written about him. The person who wrote the book says that it was written based on interviews with Bisht, which makes it functionally a primary source, which we do not accept. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

You have also readded the Category:Army Men, which is about a video game franchise. You clearly failed to review my edits before reverting.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for raising your concerns.

However, the suggestion that the article reflects “paid editing” does not appear to align with the publicly available level of independent coverage about Lucky Bisht. A simple search across major search engines returns thousands of news articles and media references discussing his work, public activities, and background.

Beyond routine media reporting, his life and career have also been the subject of published books released internationally, including publications originating from the United States. In addition, there are numerous interviews conducted by independent journalists and broadcast across national television networks and major digital media platforms.

Such coverage indicates that the subject has received sustained attention from multiple independent and reliable sources. Under Wikipedia’s notability standards for biographies, the existence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources is a key criterion.

Furthermore, public commentary or statements made by the subject on social media are often reported and discussed by news outlets, which further demonstrates the level of independent media interest.

If there are specific sources within the article that you believe do not meet Wikipedia’s reliability standards, it would be helpful to identify them individually so they can be reviewed and, if necessary, replaced with stronger independent references.

Constructive discussion focused on improving sources and structure would Spider1217 (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Every single source I checked got its information directly from claims that Bisht made in the book written about him. There is not, that I could find, any evidence that he was every involved with RAW that is independent from him. If you can provide those sources, I will be happy to let the issue lie, but as of now, there is no evidence of any of the more salacious claims being made. Please provide real, independent, nonprimary sourced sources, and I would be happy to support the information being included.

I have made no argument that he isn't notable, as he clearly is. Rather, I am claiming that the sources that are being used are not reliable because most are simply reviews of the books, interviews, or clear puff pieces.

Once again, please provide sources that aren't these things.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification.

However, the suggestion that the sources simply repeat claims from a book does not fully reflect the range of independent coverage that exists. The article currently includes references from numerous Indian news publications and national media outlets that have independently reported on Lucky Bisht’s background, interviews, and public activities.

Regarding the point about intelligence service involvement, it is important to recognize that matters related to intelligence agencies are often not publicly documented in official government records. In many cases, publicly available information about such roles comes through investigative journalism, interviews, memoirs, or professionally published works. These types of sources are commonly used by historians and journalists when discussing intelligence or security-related subjects.

The non-fiction book written by S. Hussain Zaidi and published by Simon & Schuster is a professionally published work by a major international publisher. Publications of this nature normally go through editorial and legal review processes before release, which adds a level of credibility to the material being presented.

In addition to the book, there are numerous interviews and media reports across Indian television networks and news platforms discussing Bisht’s professional background and views on national security. These are editorially controlled outlets and therefore qualify as reliable sources under Wikipedia’s sourcing guidelines.

If there are specific references within the article that you believe rely too heavily on primary claims, it would be helpful to identify those particular sources so they can be reviewed and, if necessary, supplemented with additional independent reporting.

The aim should be to improve the article through discussion and stronger sourcing rather than removing material that is already supported by multiple media references. Spider1217 (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This has been great, but I am not interested in talking with ChatGPT. Your words give a 100 percent chance of being AI with online checkers. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Sir, English is not my first language and sometimes I face language difficulties. To explain my thoughts clearly, I sometimes use tools like ChatGPT or translation to organize the sentences. However, the ideas and points are my own.

These tools are only used to help communicate better. If such tools were problematic, they would already be restricted. My intention is simply to explain my points clearly so the discussion can focus on Spider1217 (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

They are restricted. Wikipedia:AITALK

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

The book about Lucky Bisht is a biography written by S. Hussain Zaidi and published by Simon & Schuster, a major international publisher. Such publishers normally conduct editorial and legal review before publishing works that involve public figures or institutions.

In addition, several Indian news outlets and television platforms have independently interviewed and reported on Bisht. If there are specific sources you believe are not reliable, please identify them so they can be reviewed or supplemented with additi Spider1217 (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Still AI! Great time here.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion, sir. It was good talking with you.

I wish you happiness and success in your life. May you and your family always stay healthy and prosperous. I appreciate your time and wish you all the best. Spider1217 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that! This isn't an attack against you at all, and I have no real issue with you. I just disagree that these are good sources.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Now that this article is extended-confirmed protected, maybe it can be cleaned up without interference.

Like, why does the section "Books about Bisht", which is four short sentences, need to cite a dozen sources? ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you. I have removed close to 20 from the article already...

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I pared down half of the citations in that section. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

Still not sure if a word of the article is true honestly. Most of the sources end up at book reviews or interviews, which is a bit of an issue, at least in my understanding.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Several sections of reliably sourced content were removed from the article, including material supported by multiple independent national media sources (such as India Today, NDTV, The Tribune, Amar Ujala, and Live Hindustan).

These sources are independent news outlets and were cited to support the information that was removed. The edit that restored this sourced material was reverted due to extended-confirmed protection, not because the sources were evaluated.

I request an extended-confirmed editor to please review the removed content and restore the reliably sourced material where appropriate.

Thank you. Spider1217 (talk) 03:52, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. You basically duplicated this request below. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please review the removed content in the article. Several sections were supported by multiple independent national media sources such as NDTV, India Today, Amar Ujala, The Tribune and Live Hindustan.

I request an extended-confirmed editor to review the sources and restore the reliably sourced information that was removed from the article. Spider1217 (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done. A wholesale restoration would also restore a lot of poor sourcing, which is unacceptable. You need to propose a specific change in the form "change X to Y" or "add X after Y" or "remove X". Along with your proposal you must provide a rationale for the change along with citations to reliable sources. See WP:BURDEN. The burden is on the editor who wants to add content to provide policy-based arguments in favor of adding that content, and this edit request fails to meet that burden. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lllooovvveee123 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Please permission for edit

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you. Toast1454_TC 15:36, 19 May 2026 (UTC)