Talk:Amritpal Singh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Shardul Singh Bakalawale" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Shardul Singh Bakalawale and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 28#Shardul Singh Bakalawale until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Statement

Hello @Czello: I just readded the statement you removed stating "Badly copied and pasted from article". The contents have been changed to avoid copy-paste issues so can you please check if that sounds good to you? Thanks 1.23.250.183 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Czello: Sir, I also want to understand how the word "radical" violate NPOV? The word is widely used on Wikipedia and IMO it is important to use it for clarification purposes. Don't you think just saying "statement" is unclear to identify what kind of statement? Thanks. 113.193.45.185 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

We can't use a word like radical in wikivoice - it's an opinion. Descriptors like that should be avoided and we should stick to the facts. The reader can make their own mind up — Czello 15:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Ahh got you. Thank you for the clarification. So can't we even use it in quotations to avoid wikivoice even if a statement is widely published in independent reliable sources? 113.193.45.185 (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You may use an attributed quotation, as long as it doesn't constitute undue weight on the trait of being "radical". Quisqualis (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Is his height relevant?

Not sure what useful information including his height in the infobox does for this article. I could see it being relevant if he was an athlete but he's not one. Shouldn't it be removed? ThethPunjabi (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (2)

103.175.32.209 (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The undiscussed move by User:SOMIJOSHI was reverted per WP:LABEL. utcursch | talk 07:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (3)

Nezozz (talk) 06:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The undiscussed move by User:SOMIJOSHI was reverted per WP:LABEL. utcursch | talk 07:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (4)

Amritpal Singh is an activist. Please follow news accurately and only update information. Stop spreading Fake News. Amritpal Singh is a khalistani terrorist working against the indian government and its people.

Change all mentions of activist to terrorist. 73.118.194.115 (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The undiscussed move by User:SOMIJOSHI was reverted per WP:LABEL. utcursch | talk 07:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:utcursch for continuing to ensure Wikipedia is reliable. 73.118.194.115 (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (5)

terrorist not activist

terrorist not activist 2405:201:300D:603D:5C5C:7781:DD95:3A75 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (8)

Don't be beta (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)change activist to terrorist

 Not done: Firstly discussion and also make request for renaming this page at Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.→ αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 14:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC) →

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2023

please change Amritpal arrested to amritpal absconding Garry6447 (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. stwalkerster (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023

Kindly Pls don't call this guy "activist" he is a separatist and wants to seperate punjab state from India. Indian government agencies are monitoring activities of this guy. Look up to Indian Intelligence agencies reports and remove the activist from his name instead call him a alleged separatist. He openly said he wants to remove khalistan(Punjab) from India. Muhammad-bin-rashid 1 (talk) 06:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done Please try Wikipedia:Requested moves since this is a contentious topic. See Activism: a person campaigning to bring about political change (good or otherwise) is an activist. If you think that "separatist" is a better label, you will need to present an analysis of reliable sources to support that change. utcursch | talk 07:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023 (2)

122.50.200.155 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Redirect created. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 02:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

@CanadianSingh1469, would you like to explain what part of this article is non-neutral based on the addition of the tag here >>> Extorc.talk 11:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

Baadal Saab, please explain why you have moved this page to a new title that is not evidenced anywhere. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe this should be speedily moved back to the previous name @Kautilya3 >>> Extorc.talk 21:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Filed a request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This is User:Khalsa Mishima per WP:DUCK. utcursch | talk 06:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2023

Hi there,

I would request that the sensationalist words like “radical” and other words that protest bias be removed from the article.

Wikipedia is for facts, not opinions. And to most people, Amritpal is a hero and activist that is putting a voice to a murdered and genocided-against peoples.

Please help.

Thank you

TJ 198.48.151.194 (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023

He is not an activist he is a millitant. 103.140.219.189 (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023 (4)

Saurav.sh (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Amritpal Singh (Terrorist) redirects to this page. No further page will be created. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

He is a activist

I am suggesting you to do give him a title of activist, He is not a criminal or terrorist . 2402:3A80:1C1C:28B9:555F:FC61:3665:2DD (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

He is an activist fighting to bring peace and health back into Punjab. Please stop spreading fake news. He is an activist against drug spread by the Narendra Modi government. Watch movies and history published on the drug use in Punjab. 73.118.194.115 (talk) 07:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Very true he is a separatist on the way to become a terrorist like bhindranwale. Looks like he was bornnon tge wrong side of the border. Just bad lu k for him. He would have had a bright future in pakidtan. Unfortunately would suffer jail or death in india. 66.206.249.4 (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He is not a terrorist he is turning the youth of punjab away from drugs which the India state has not been able to stop ! Bobksk (talk) 06:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

He is doing very good job to save Sikh youth and Sikh culture which has been maligned and defamed and targeted to be destroyed by Indian governments from time to time. Government doesn’t have any practice of fundamental rights, system is quite corrupt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.200.42.106 (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He is not a criminal He is helping the youth of punjab to turn away from drugs and follow the teachings of the Sikh Gurus.

Inaccurate discretion of person

Terrorist 2405:201:101A:B00A:30B5:24E:BE16:132 (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

He is an activist fighting to bring peace and health back into Punjab. Please stop spreading fake news. He is an activist against drug spread by the Narendra Modi government. Watch movies and history published on the drug use in Punjab. 73.118.194.115 (talk) 07:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

He talk about khalistan in media . He also demand khalistan out of India how can he be activist . He is Separatist Shivamsk1546 (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Talking about Khalistan is well with in Constitutional right of a democratic nation. Moreover punjab has been separated into two states in 1947 one gone to Pakistan and other resides in India. So he is just practicing the right to make it as a independent state again. There is nothing involved as breaking a nation. Independent hawk (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (6)

Amritpal Singh (Activist) to Amritpal Singh (separatist).

As a contributing memeber of the site, I am aware that everybody has the right to share and recieve knowledge. However, in cases like these, this freedom of sharing of knowledge is mis-used. Amritpal Singh is a known fugitive from the government of the Republic of India. He has actively incited violence in the state of Punjab, and is actively vying for seperation of a state who's populace doesn't even want seperation. He has been linked to Pakistani ISI, a known source of terror related incidents in India.

I would therefore like to request Admins to verify information, and to make changes to the title and article accordingly.

Calling a known seperatist, an activist maligns the reputation of activists and the threatens the territorial integrity of Republic of India.

Wikipedia should be a source of Free and unbiased knowledge and not a tool of terrorism and seperatism. Kishu 99 (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

You haven't defined your request nor provided any sources for what it is you want changed. It is not up to admins to "verify information, and to make changes to the title and article" but the consensus of editors. If you want the page to be at a different title then see the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial. And I really don't think that the title of a Wikipedia article is threatening the "territorial integrity of Republic of India." I'm sure India is a lot stronger than that. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2023 (7)

The word "fugutive" should be removed Guestsede (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This is completely untrue that he is fugitive. Its government media and government controlled system with no free access to basic freedoms. Media can define him as run away based on plans by government. Minorities suffer badly in India including low caste majority. 121.200.42.106 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

The article on Amritpal Singh on Wikipedia seems to be written from a particular point of view (POV). The article portrays him as a person who started violence and attacks. However, there are other perspectives and opinions about him that need to be considered.

There are several articles that highlight Amritpal Singh's fight against drug abuse in Punjab. His efforts have gained him supporters, and protests are being held everywhere. This is an important aspect of his life and should be included in the article to provide a more complete picture.

It is important to maintain neutrality and fairness when writing about a person's life and achievements. As per the Wikipedia policy on Neutral Point of View (NPOV), all perspectives must be considered, and the article should be written in a balanced and unbiased way.

Therefore, the editors should revisit the article and ensure that all relevant information about Amritpal Singh is included, including his work against drug abuse, and that the article is written in a neutral and unbiased manner.

Thank you.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 00:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Please read the page WP:NPOV first before trying to claim violation of it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I have already read and that's why I added this discussion here. Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it, as per NPOV. But this article's neutrality is still disputed as I explained above. Subject is represented as violent, while the "fighting against drugs" side is just mention in the middle simply in one sentence. There are many other perspective. So this need to be written in neutral form. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

No issues of neutrality as all sources cited from credible independent licensed news media including international media. Versions of people claiming to be supporters cannot be quoted as breach to neutrality or as authentic versions (eg. Supporters of Hitler claim he was correct). Every person is seen differently by different entities hence everything cant be said to be biased/neutral. Credible sources dont't dispute neutrality. (Adequate citations given). Any entry with credible citation from recognized established source will be accepted.

Trying to put POV without discussion will be reverted. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 04:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV says "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

There is nothing about "taking sides".

The article has been around for some 5 months. You have not made any attempt to add anything to it, until yesterday when your first action was to add a POV tag. You have not mentioned or brought any reliable source that supposedly present "other perspectives". You are just waving hands in the air and shooting in the dark. Unless you start giving some specifics and provide sources and content, this repeated POV-tagging will be considered disruptive and reported for admins to take action. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There is something crazy going on with this article - lots of strange edits are being made and the talk page seems to be some e-protest document. To be fair, maybe you can add his lawyer's perspective [1][2] 202.168.84.67 (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no lawyer of the person, the person is a fugitive with no known contacts to anyone as of now.

(Unnecessary information will not be added) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023 (3)

Please understand that your sources are mostly from Indian media papers which mostly is under government control and baised. Please think before you put information out there. This is a country that attacks its own religions. 193.115.247.114 (talk) 09:31, 20 March 2023 (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. >>> Extorc.talk 09:45, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of info from lead

Under this edit, @RoyalOutlaw removed a section of the lead. Lets have a look at the explanation he provides.
"Citations used to claim that Amritpal Singh was brainwashing youth and organizing a system of bombings, along with ISI linkings, of are heavily questionable and very dubious in nature."
The citations are from Hindustan Times and DNA India. HT is considered generally reliable. HT clearly states

"Amritpal Singh, the 'fugitive' pro-Khalistan preacher and the ‘Waris Punjab De’ chief, was trying to raise his own army - the Anandpur Khalsa Force (AKF) - on the lines of the Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF) and a human bomb squad....intelligence inputs suggested that Amritpal Singh was using drug de-addiction centres and a gurdwara for stockpiling weapons and preparing youths to carry out suicide attacks....returned from Dubai last year allegedly at the behest of Pakistan's ISI and Khalistan sympathisers residing overseas,..."

RoyalOutlaw further states that
"The citations removed fail to mention which specific intelligence agencies found evidence of ISI intervention."
That barely forms any grounds for the removal of the information. The entire point of having a WP:RS is to have them do the work while we are saved the pain of WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH.
"Secondly, claims made by the Punjab Police following his arrest warrant should be viewed as highly skeptical considering the high tensions within the Punjab region at this moment."
These claims are made by Intelligense and security agencies and not exclusively by the police.

Kindly don't remove the information before a lengthy discussion here. >>> Extorc.talk 14:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The wording is ok as it stands. Can you fill in WP:Full citations for the cited sources? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If this is what is meant by Full Citations, just did. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2023 (2)

Change: He is currently absconding arrest and has been declared a fugitive.[18] He has been reported to have close links to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence and terror groups.[23] He has also been reported to have been raising his own army and 'human bomb squads' consisting of brainwashed youth as suicide bombers.[24][25]

To: 'BLANK' or Erase

Explanation: Calls for speculation in the matter discussed above. The figure has not been confirmed as having links to all is mentioned above. I will state here that that is no confirmed narrative on what has been said above. The sources are corrupt, and are controlled by individuals who specifically express hatred towards the Activists, in this case 'Amritpal Singh's' religion, Sikhism.

Furthermore, for the validity of this change, I request that varuous NON-BIAS, sources be used for this matter. Sources claimed in article are from very specific anti-sikh media groups that have been previously, and are currently expressing hate rewards the Sikh religion. I suggest using sources outside of India, THE COUNTRY HAS TURNED OFF INTERNET, MEANING THERE IS A LIMITED NUMBER OF RELIABLE SOURCES FOR THIS MATTER. Which also shows how this article is expressing false narratives. ImTh3TruthT3113r (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit interface-protected}} template. "The sources are corrupt", Reality couldn't be further from this. >>> Extorc.talk 14:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Amritpal Singh is a self styled Sikh preacher and does not represent majority of Sikhism or Sikhs.

Sources Cited are extremely credible news agencies with established history of more than half a century of journalism and accepted globally as unbiased media houses. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Remove his connection with ISI and Pakistan agencies.

He is not involved with ISI and Pakistan Agencies. He is sikh preacher who helping youth to quit drugs and accept Sikhi. 2604:3D09:381:4100:1DC1:B683:CD68:CF55 (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:381:4100:1DC1:B683:CD68:CF55 kindly read WP:RS >>> Extorc.talk 18:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References and Citations to credible independent sources has been provided for current version. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The references are mentioning unsourced officials and provide no evidence - hence are not credible. It should be mentioned that these allegations are unsourced or should be deleted for their lack of credibility. Princhest01 (talk) 23:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced References and Citations

The references listing allegations from unsourced Indian officials without showing any claims are not-credible and should be deleted. Princhest01 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Unapproved Court Warrant

It needs to be mentioned that there is no court approved Warrant for his arrest. Princhest01 (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Very clear pro-Indian government narrative bias in this article

I added viewpoints to add neutrality to the article yet find my addition being reverted (see here) due to certain users claiming my source was "biased", yet this article using Indian media outlets, a country not renowned for its media freedom, is not biased? Very clear narratives and a one-sided story being pushed in the article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 10:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The government bias will remain. The limitations of Wikipedia are on display here, as the personal biases of the majority of editors are being reflected in what sources they choose to use and ignore. There is no quality difference between the Baaz article and the Hindustan Times article that claims Amritpal was going to use suicide bombers with absolutely no backing. But because of the personal biases of people such as @Kautilya3, who have much more time to spend editing Wikipedia, the unreliable Hindustan Times will remain while the Baaz article will not. This is a good case study on why Wikipedia is only a good cursory source, and not authoritative at all. CalicoMo (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh really? Both are same? HT article is quoting intelligence officials and wikipedia article is careful in its wording - "He has been reported to have been raising his own army and 'human bomb squads'". The Baaz article claims "Original reporting" for its article. So what is wrong if @Kautilya3 wants it to be treated as WP:PRIMARY source? Mixmon (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, both are the same. Quoting anonymous "intelligence officials" with no context or more information is absolutely useless. Especially from a country like India where the press has such little integrity. The only reason you think HT is legitimate source and Baaz isn't is your personal bias. Whether you accept that or not, I don't care. CalicoMo (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@CalicoMo I posted to the dispute resolution noticeboard, please share your views there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Amritpal_Singh_(activist) ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The source you added is not even vaguely reliable. All other sources demonstrate that a mob attacked Indian embassies across countries.
But Baaz says "Sikhs worldwide have condemned the security operations in Punjab to arrest Sikh leader Bhai Amritpal Singh." Clear tendency to suppress news about Mob attacks.
"Section 144 ...The colonial-era law prohibits the gathering of four or more people and those found in violation of the order can be charged with rioting. " Section 144 is a part of CrPC which was brought in 1973, definitely not colonial era. Factual error 1. They also fail to understand that 144 is instrumentally used by govts across India for maintaining law and order and is not some draconian law.
"No reasons have been provided by the government for these draconian measures or for the arrest of Bhai Amritpal Singh and his companions." Its hilarious that this source forgets that the person they are talking about is a radical separatist preacher who has already stormed police stations as corroborated by WP:RS. Factual Error 2.<
"Indian colonial-era laws like the National Security Act" NSA is an act brought in 1980, not colonial era. Factual error 3.
Overall, this source should be removed as quickly as possible from the article.

@Kautilya3 comments?

>>> Extorc.talk 11:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc Even if those may (because you could be either right or wrong with your assertions) be factual errors regarding the dating of when these laws were brought into place, it does not disregard the validity of the source itself since those are very minor and inconsequential details that are not the crux of the issue nor the main discussion at-hand. This seems more like an attempt to disregarding sources that give voice to the Sikh perspective based on flimsy factual errors (as claimed according to you). "They also fail to understand that 144 is instrumentally used by govts across India for maintaining law and order and is not some draconian law." – That is your opinion. Many others would say that arresting any gathering of people over four is draconian. "Its hilarious that this source forgets that the person they are talking about is a radical separatist preacher who has already stormed police stations as corroborated by WP:RS" – And this is a government and police force that has been accused of genocide, human rights abuses, and more violations. Why should one be favoured over the other? "NSA is an act brought in 1980, not colonial era." – Minor detail, not important to the main topic. "Overall, this source should be removed as quickly as possible from the article." – I do not find your arguments convincing. You have not raised any points on why specifically the article is unreliable in-regards to its reporting of the events of Amritpal Singh's life, you only listed some claimed factual errors for dates and your personal opinion that differ with their claims, such as you personally characterizing protest activities as "mob attacks" and being incensed that Baaz News does not characterize these protestors the same way using the same label. @CanadianSingh1469, @Twarikh e Khalsa and @Dilpreet Singh, it would be great if you three are able to voice your opinions as well on this issue. ThethPunjabi (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Are factual errors inconsequential? This source can't even get basic facts right, how do you think it will publish the entire story accurately? What's this "Bhai" Amritpal Singh - clearly a pro-Khalistan bias? It's not only Indian media even non-Indian media like BBC calls this person Khalistani Separatist. Mixmon (talk) 11:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sikh community newspapers and newsletters (e.g., Baaz) should be treated as WP:PRIMARY sources. They can only be used for attributed statements, and WP:CONSENSUS is needed for their inclusion. You can't just claim "BALANCE". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS, of which this person commands none. @Kautilya3 shall I go ahead and remove that source and information supported by it for now? >>> Extorc.talk 11:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Only a few people have given their thoughts. This is a contentious article and I just raised a RfC, allow more time and do not hastily close this. ThethPunjabi (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, did not notice you have raised an Rfc. >>> Extorc.talk 11:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I cited Baaz News for quoting what the president of the World Sikh Organization had said about the crackdown (which was reverted). If Baaz News is considered a primary source, then the rest of the attributed text can be removed to comply with WP rules and guidelines. However, is it a primary source? It is not directly affiliated with Waris Panjab De or Amritpal Singh, can it be considered a primary source just on the fact it's a Sikh-affiliated news outlet? I would argue it is a secondary source based on its "analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." The primary source being the statements and testimonies of the pro-Amritpal camp. ThethPunjabi (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You are not exclusively using this source for the purpose you state. You have also added "There are also fears of extrajudicial killings of Sikh activists taking place conducted by the authorities under the guise of "fake encounters"." >>> Extorc.talk 12:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not claim I only used it for that purpose in my comment. I mentioned one of the purposes of my citation. I further said my other uses for it can removed if it is considered a 'primary source' but I dispute that designation. ThethPunjabi (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Even if you want to make a case to include that source, I recommend you to stop unnecessarily dragging the Sikh community here. Are "World Sikh Organisation", "Sikh-affiliated media" or "Sikh-activists" democratically elected by the Sikh community? Mixmon (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon Since when on Wikipedia do sources have to be democratically elected to be warranted as reliable? Have a read of WP:NEGOTIATE, you are currently arguing on the basis of ad hominem on Graham's hierarchy of disagreement (look at the bottom of the tiers). World Sikh Organization is notable enough to warrant inclusion, it has its own WP article itself. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand what I have written? It was not about wikipedia but a suggestion. WSO at best is organisation of some sikhs not entire sikh communisty, u understand the difference? Now tell me what this means "Sikhs worldwide have condemned the security operations in Punjab to arrest Sikh leader Bhai Amritpal Singh." Mixmon (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon I think it is you who has failed to understand what you yourself originally wrote when you brought up the question of an organization being "democratically elected" (why does that matter and since when is that used as a measure to gauge if an organization's view is permitted to be included in an article or not?). Your "suggestion" has no bearing, no existing WP rule or guideline mandates this odd requirement (which absolutely no Sikh organization could meet, as you want one that can represent the "entire" Sikh community, which is a impossible demand you are using to silence any Sikh opposition or voice on the article). It can therefore be ignored. And what do you think the quote means? Read the article. It clearly discusses the reaction and showing of supporting Sikhs worldwide have shown to Amritpal Singh's cause.ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Aren't you contradicting yourself by pretending not to understand what I was saying? and what exactly do you want? Diasporic Sikhs protest against action on Amritpal is clearly mentioned in the article. Mixmon (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Further expanding what was pointed out by @Mixmon, I strongly believe that a source must not be trusted about claiming "extrajudicial killings" if it has a tendency to call a Radical Khalistani separatist Bhai, >>> Extorc.talk 12:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It's more like an advertisment for that Waris de organisation "Bhai Amritpal Singh, head of the Waris Punjab De (Heirs of Punjab) organization, has recently become prominent in Punjab with his successful campaign to inspire Punjabi youth to reject drugs and embrace the Sikh faith.  Amritpal Singh has also been open and unapologetic in his support for Khalistan, a sovereign Sikh state, and highlighting discrimination against the Sikh community in India" Mixmon (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc @Mixmon – According to WP:NEGOTIATE and Graham's hierarchy of disagreement, you are now attacking the tone of the source (second bottom tier). You have yet to criticize anything substantive to prove the source is "unreliable". The source using the word "Bhai" (an Indian honorifical prefix and Sikh title) is not enough to warrant it as an unreliable source. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether a source is capable of reporting facts is directly demonstrated by the quality of facts they present. If this source cant even work with basic facts like What is Section 144 and NSA, it cannot be trusted with larger facts like the ones subject of this article.
"This seems more like an attempt to disregarding sources that give voice to the Sikh perspective" If a source shows clear incapability to report facts, we must question its reliability. It doesn't matter whether it shows Sikh perspective or a Non-Sikh perspective, the reality is, that this is a terrible source when it comes to reporting facts. These are not "flimsy factual errors (as claimed according to you)".
"And this is a government and police force that has been accused of genocide, human rights abuses, and more violations. " Just because law enforcement authority has been accused of a HRV doesnot mean that it is no longer the Law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the land. RS clearly demonstrate that police have taken action against the radical activities he was leading.
"you only listed some claimed factual errors for dates and your personal opinion that differ with their claims" those factual errors are not my claims. NSA 1980 and CrPC 1973 are long established Legal statutes in India.
"you personally characterizing protest activities as "mob attacks"" Sir kindly read the WP:RS cited in this article. Cited by you, I shall specify. A mob also attacked the Indian consulate in the San Francisco

Overall, I would highly recommend reading WP:RS from header to footer. >>> Extorc.talk 11:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc "If this source cant even work with basic facts like What is Section 144 and NSA, it cannot be trusted with larger facts like the ones subject of this article." So please list one of the issues regarding the "larger facts" then rather than nitpicking on minor details in an attempt to discredit the source. ThethPunjabi (talk) 12:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Sir, kindly stop the WP:IDONTLIKETHAT and try to understand that If I am able to demonstrate that source, that is not an established WP:RS, widely fails to report on facts and is not reliable, If it says stuff like "Many fear the extrajudicial killings of Sikh activists in the guise of ‘fake encounters’ in the current circumstances." we must not add that here. >>> Extorc.talk 12:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It was claimed by his uncle Harjit, who is charged with NSA, and his lawyer in the high court. This website failed to specify that. Many of its claims are just pro-Amritpal rewriting of mainstream media coverage. Mixmon (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon This just proves you never fully read the Baaz News source, as this claim does not come from his "uncle", who you attempt to character assassinate, but rather the president of the World Sikh Organization, I quote the source directly: "Sikhs are also concerned about the risk of extrajudicial murder, as Tejinder Singh shares, 'we are also deeply concerned that the confusion around Bhai Amritpal Singh’s detention may be used to orchestrate a false encounter and facilitate his extrajudicial murder. This tactic was commonly used by the Punjab police through the 80’s and 90’s to eliminate Sikh activists.' "

So please do not make false claims and have a full read through a source before you make uninformed comments on its reliability. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Again you are unable to comprehend what's written, do you understand the difference between-

1. Many fear the extrajudicial killings of Sikh activists in the guise of ‘fake encounters’ in the current circumstances.
2. WSO president fear the extrajudicial killings of Sikh activists in the guise of ‘fake encounters’ in the current circumstances.

Mixmon (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Section 144 is actually a colonial era law created in the 1800s and used by India and Pakistan to suppress protests or COVID spreading gatherings to this day. Solblaze (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Solblaze I posted to the dispute resolution noticeboard, please share your views there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Amritpal_Singh_(activist) ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Got interested in how it's possible that different sides have different views of Section 144. Folks missed a really good chance to actually be respectful editors towards each other around this. To some extent, both views (colonial law vs 1973 law) are correct. There more than a few places that note that section 144 originates from 1861 [3][4][5] and was used to stop protests related to the Indian freedom movement. The current Code of Criminal Procedure (India) which includes that section was passed in 1973, but it was first created in 1882, amended in 1898 and then based on Law_Commission_of_India#Fifth_Law_Commission report, a new version passed in 1973. Both sides are correct, but please read the 1882 statute, section 144 is on pages 75-76.

Folks, read the Dispute Resolution. There's too much speculation about other editors, not enough working to resolve differences happening. Ravensfire (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc @Kautilya3 – I am going to be away from my computer for a while, so please do not mistake my lack of replies from this point on as me ignoring you in any way. Hopefully when I return, there will be more opinions on the balance of the article and the sources. Cheers, ThethPunjabi (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that I went ahead and removed the RFC tag from this obviously-not-an-rfc discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Article need WP:NPOV and it seems we have WP:CONFLICT and until we have more admins WP:RAA to monitor it will remain state fake narrative as most sikhs profile don't have privilege to edit protected article . Dilpreet Singh ping  14:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

Authenticated Sources and References are enough. Public Opinion of few online accounts does not dispute neutrality.

PS. This page has little to do with the group 'Sikhs' as the person is neither the representative not a religious leader en masse. Just heads a small cult.

 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I have quoted some experts here. These accounts have not yet shared even a single reliable source to prove that he has a mass following among Sikhs in India. ( How a taxi driver living in Dubai can become a mass leader in India within a few months could be an award winning Pol.Sci case study) Mixmon (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes.. you can have a case study on him. he was not a taxi driver rather a business owner and was an engineering student. crosscheck your information before you propagate states narrative. Dilpreet Singh ping  15:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

state sources are not authenticated , they are running propaganda. This page is representing a Sikh who worked to heal from drugs and preach sikh values to youth. He was accepted and backed by all the sikhs organizations. stop your nonsense. Dilpreet Singh ping  15:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

Yeah that't why he escaped using drug dealer's SUV [6][7]

Also I encourage you to counter "state propaganda" by finding out his engineering degree from his college database and business records from Govt of UAE data. I'm sure journalists across the world will be more than happy to cover it. Till then accept what is written. Mixmon (talk) 16:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

why we accept nonsense propagated by state and since you are unable to understand the conflict between sikhs and hindu state you are clearly unaware about the sources and narrative media is building using state machinery. i'll say stay back and watch it. Dilpreet Singh ping  18:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

@Dilpreet Singh Do you think I should post this thread to DRN (dispute resolution noticeboard)? These users have yet to criticize anything substantive. Their arguments have been shallow, red herrings, misinformed, and other non-noteworthy comments (as demonstrated above) conjured up based on their personal disagreements. This article is very biased and this thread proves why, as we have people of a certain viewpoint only allowing a certain narrative to exist on the article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

yes.. we need a balance conversation and equal opportunity to edit & protect this article. Dilpreet Singh ping  18:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

@Dilpreet Singh – I posted to the dispute resolution noticeboard, please share your views there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Amritpal_Singh_(activist) ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Permission to edit should be removed

It seems pro-state and pro-hindutva lobby is keep editing the article and there's no disussion before adding nonsense. this article is biased and one sided and supporting government agenda WP:NPOV , permission of editing should be removed or questionable contents should be removed until discussed.

WP:RFC WP:RFAA Dilpreet Singh ping  18:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You can keep spamming the Talk page all you want. All you have is unreferenced claims and a singular crying of bias, state is against me etc etc. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

then why don't remove the permission and then let's see how many people want to edit this article. Dilpreet Singh ping  19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Because the page has faced persistent vandalism. There is a reason why Wikipedia has Protected Articles in the first place.

It's a frivolous request. Wikipedia is not a social media platform for people to come and write their opinions in articles. If there is something with credible references and sources, it will be and is being added, period. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

you are giving a free pass to the pro-state narrative to flourish , sikhs doens't have many account that meet the requirement for the semi protected. even my account is not eligible to edit the main page. all I am seeing one sided view and keep adding on main page without discussion. that's total nonsense. Dilpreet Singh ping  19:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

One, that's your assumption. Two, read the above comment carefully. This is not a website to give you social justice or to pass judgements. If you have anything with credible citations and references, it is being added. If you don't then it will not be. It's that simple. Don't spam the Talk page with nonsense. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

what do you mean by assumption.. how many edits a sikhs profile have done after permission added and you are one of the biased teaching others how not to see what you are doing incorrectly. this is your comment "it's not biased. Where are these "most Sikhs"" remove the permission then see how many knock down your false narrative. Dilpreet Singh ping  19:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dilpreet Singh Hello Dilpreet, I have sources we can use to update the article. If you have any, you can share them with me by leaving a message on my talk page or sending me an email. I will be home later today and will be able to work on things then. ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

we can talk about that however here these pro-state are lobbying and giving free pass to edit without any discussion. Dilpreet Singh ping  19:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense like "human bomb squads' consisting of brainwashed" should be removed

as i pointed out multiple times, article is biased and doesn't have WP:NPOV and we need more WP:RAA to monitor here and should fix this article immediately. article include such nonsense based on the state propaganda which is included in article's main page. my suggestion is there should be a section for state's propaganda which started last week and with in few hours they declared him an ISI agent and connection with drug dealer instead of drug healer. worth to mentioned state is involved in drugs [8] and was exposed recently. ScottishFinnishRadish what would you say on this, state vs amritpal singh. state is responsible for drugs in punjab and amritpal singh is one who have been working to heal people of punjab. Dilpreet Singh ping  16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have anything to say on content matters because I'm not familiar with the situation at all. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll suggest then remove that nonsense until we decide that, this article is actively visited by thousands and will gain more momentum as this will be gaining more wider audience in future until he's produced in front on public by police. currently they are hiding him and media is pushing narrative to deliberately harm his image in front of the world. once it's done, then it would be easy for enforcement to kill him. Dilpreet Singh ping  17:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dilpreet Singh What does that article has got to do with Amritpal Singh? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

not sure what do you mean, however, we are editing amritpal singh's page and I wanted this article to be unbiased and we should remove all nonsense propagated by state to tarnish his image. Dilpreet Singh ping  17:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The reason you are "not sure" is because you are citing WP:NPOV without understanding WP:RS/WP:OR Mixmon (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

so you think article is not biased? then why most of sikhs has issue with this? if you are not understanding the point i made, then we are just in circle and wasting time. Dilpreet Singh ping  18:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not biased. Where are these "most Sikhs", you are the only person who seems to have problem with this article because I don't see anyone else spamming the Talk page with these rants.

Sorry, but you are wasting you time and the time of others here too. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

additionaly, you guys have made article pro-state and where's the discussion on these additions to the main page. show me where have to discussed about adding these nonsense? Dilpreet Singh ping  18:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Even I can't participate in this unproductive debate. Use WP:PNBD if talk page is not working for you. Mixmon (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

show me where have you discussed about adding this information in main page.. it is productive unless you run away from answering the genuine question or pretend not to understand my concern. if you are genuine editor then answer wisely. Dilpreet Singh ping  18:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Everything need not be discused if it is citing reliable sources. Your problem is you have too many demands and too little WP:RS. You can start a discussion here if you have problem with any particular source. Mixmon (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

then my claim is correct, you are a pro-hindutva, rather than considering the sikh narrative which is actual reality. you found some nonsense and copy paste on the main article without evaluating whethere it is possible or not. offcourse i'll take you where ever you want if not resolved here. Dilpreet Singh ping  18:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

my question then to all admins, WP:RAA why this is allowed provided we are well aware state is operating against Sikhs and building a fake narrative to eliminate ? let me know if you are doubtful on that. Dilpreet Singh ping  18:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For your information, WP:RAA is a wikipedia page not a prayer to invoke admins. Mixmon (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

either way WP:RFC WP:RFAA you can not add such nonsense. Dilpreet Singh ping  18:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Citing RFC/RFAA won't help. @ThethPunjabi help him to start a discussion in noticeboard of his choice WP:PNBD Mixmon (talk) 18:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

there's already a discussion on notice board I started a two days back. don't act oversmart, jump in , let see what else is needed to fix you

[9] Dilpreet Singh ping  19:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Who is this "we", this is all your own personal opinion with which you are spamming this talk page with ZERO REFERENCES, CITATION, VERIFIED SOURCES or anything credible.

All you are trying to do is push your own biases or opinions or analysis of a situation on an article.

It's very clear, we are not sitting here to debate on what is the actual or perceived truth. This is no judgement passing area. It's a simple article with content with clear and credible references, as simple as that. If you don't have anything to substantiate your claims except some random online blog or your own opinions, that's your problem, not one of the administrators or wiki or editors. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dilpreet Singh Indeed, like I had stated at the DRN I filed that was closed for bureaucratic reasons, there are clear WP:NPOV issues with this article and it is failing to meet WP:BALANCE and WP:BLP at its current state. The article needs to be updated in light of the current balance issues towards one side of the story. I will be sharing sources but if any source we share is unduly nitpicked and ignored by some while sources highlighting the other side are accepted as truth and not criticized at all, it does not lead to to conductive and collaborative environment. ThethPunjabi (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

Whoever has edited or written this wikipedia has tried to defame Bhai Amritpal Singh by telling hiss incomplete education or tried to connect him with ISI or trained by them. The person has no knowledge but I dont know why would google let random people edit the information which is going to effect on global basic. Please do not let any one edit and I urge you to remove the false information provided. It leaves a negative effect on the people worldwide. I will be very thankful for your this act. 24.207.23.154 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2023 (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. >>> Extorc.talk 05:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023 (2)

changed activist to separatist Romanizer00 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Please note that a RM disc is going on on this t/p. >>> Extorc.talk 13:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023 (3)

I would like to add another paragraph (text below) to the 'Early Controversies' section. The speech is available in the cited YouTube URL from timestamp 14:47 to 15:13

In another speech, he made xenophobic remarks against Hindus coming from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Himachal Pradesh to Punjab. He said, “They come here and worship idols, roam around wearing Janeu (sacred thread worn by Hindus), and sell cigarettes and drugs.” Addressing the crowd present at the event he said, “If you do not want such things to happen in your village, take action.” Pbeditwiki (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Sorry, this is WP:UNDUE. Please provide reliable secondary sources that describe his speech as such and discuss about it in detail — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

Kindly mention in the article that Khalistani Extremist Amritpal Singh had connections with drug-dealers and he ran off in a Mercedes SUV of a drug-dealer called Ravel Singh as reported in various reputed sources. Detectivepedian (talk) 08:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Added with attribution. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023 (4)

As seen on the talk page there is a concencus of accounts calling for the removal of "He has also been reported to have been raising his own army and 'human bomb squads' consisting of brainwashed youth as suicide bombers idolising Dilawar Singh." as the sources referenced are from Indian-state backed Media outlets. This is important when considering they are reporting on an anti-Indian state entity. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources you put under question are WP:RS and will not be removed. >>> Extorc.talk 19:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What type of response is this? I am arguing that Amritpal Singh being an anti-Indian entity renders Indian-state backed media outlets unreliable sources.

From WP:RS:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

Here's the shortcut for it so you can read it yourself: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Uproot Tyranny (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc is constantly denying the request whilst not addressing the point I have raised. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"State backed media outlets" would be Doordarshan, which I agree isnt RS for this purpose. Since that isnt the source in question, the argument stands invalid. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello @CapnJackSp

This Al-Jazeera article explains it well: https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/1/6/big-money-is-choking-indias-free-press

Yes, Doordarshan is State media, but almost the entirety of Indian news media is state-backed. NDTV, one of the last holdouts for independent press in India was bought by Gautam Adani late last year; one of the richest men in India who has strong ties with the ruling BJP.

I'm sure we can all agree that Indian news media is biased towards the Indian Government; the problem is that Indian news media cannot be relied on for someone who is obviously an anti-Indian entity. Ponder for a moment, why these articles claiming he was making 'human bombs' came out literally a day after he was 'supposedly on the run'.

You mean to tell me that they had this information the entire time and only released it after he was on the run?

To reiterate: These sources cannot be relied on as they are actively pro-Indian Government and the individual in question is an anti-Indian entity. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This was a very long argument with very little substance; take up reliability concerns at RSN if you want but I doubt you'll find any takers. In future, rely on WP policies and relevant articles instead of tangential articles, extrapolation and "pondering". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Very little substance?

Fine don't take my word for it, here's more articles by authentic media outlets stating that Indian news media is state-backed.

https://www.ft.com/content/a17191ec-26fc-4880-9f39-11b9b5f6654f

https://www.economist.com/asia/2022/08/29/media-freedom-in-india-is-under-threat-again

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/bbc-tax-raids-shine-light-indian-media-freedom-under-modi-some-journalists-say-2023-03-04/

https://www.voanews.com/a/india-s-adani-defends-media-bid-after-press-freedom-fears/6850052.html

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/05/03/india-media-freedom-under-threat Uproot Tyranny (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, none of those are useful to show that Indian media is an unreliable source for WP purposes in India related matters. And again, if you are trying to contest reliability of a bunch of sources, do it at RSN, not here. Will be a better use of your time. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so then what is your solution @CapnJackSp?

Let blatant lies about this individual preparing 'human bombs' stay there because Indian news media, which is ranked 133 on the Press Freedom Index, said so? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

As long as something is in line with WP policies, I dont really care (and neither should you if you intend to be a good faith editor) about it satisfying other criteria set by other organisations. If you feel it is not in line with policy take it up at the required avenue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

What on earth are you even suggesting? That news outlets that rank 133 on PFI are reliable sources for Wikipedia Policy? Easy words to say when it's not your people being picked up in vans. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I have given you 6 credible sources to show you how Indian media is an unreliable source for Wikipedia purposes in Indian matters to which you have replied that it isn't 'useful', you've disregarded my argument that it isn't appropriate nor neutral to include Indian news articles for an anti-Indian state entity. What more can I do? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Look whether any source is reliable or not can only be decided at WP:RSN not in talk page. Please start a discussion there. Mixmon (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request while it is being discussed, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2023 (2)

It must be mentioned on the page that Amritpal Singh and his aides have allegedly received foreign funding of over Rs. 40 Crore. Detectivepedian (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Added the same with reference of Indian Express. Thanks. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2023 (3)

amritpal singh was not making any bomb squad.he is a true sant, a preacher, healer and social activist.source says he's detained by police. he was running an organization against drug cartel in Punjab and was spreading da GURU's word. he was helping youth to get off from drug abuse. Bhullarkorjit (talk) 21:10, 24 March 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

this article is biased against amritpal singh stating him as a terrorist. I understand that the vast majority of india is hindu which has a hatred towards sikh activists but the fact that it is written he is forming a group of suicide bombers is actually concerning and is blatant propaganda. The indian government has blocked media and internet coming out of punjab we need more media sources who tell the truth rather than this bias. 2620:CC:8000:1C82:4DFC:E2B8:3765:DE8B (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2023 (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. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023 (2)

Change radical to peaceful. This is very biased as all your sources are from the Indian media and they never speak the truth. 81.108.144.175 (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 March 2023 (3)

2.98.151.24 (talk) 21:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Below information is wrong about Amritpal Singh in Wikipedia (He is accused of maintaining close contacts with the Inter-Services Intelligence and attempting to raise a militia including suicide bombers as per intelligence reports.)

 Not done: The information is as stated in the cited source(s). See WP:Verifiability. Kautilya3 (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023 (2)

“is a radical[10] Indian Khalistan separatist,[13]”———- replace this line with: Is a democratic Khalsa activist. Knowledgeable preacher for the Sikh community. 173.56.56.70 (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. >>> Extorc.talk 07:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It can almost be funny at times how brazen edit requests can get :) .Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023 (3)

gross amount of misinformation on here, leading to a smear campaign. Hello0928 (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2023 (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. M.Bitton (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Very biased article

Lacks objectivity in tone and framing 2601:645:4300:A290:FABF:676D:FF67:D143 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It's well referenced and has neutral language CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is extremely biased, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he was making human bombs. Absolutely laughable, the references are from Indian state-backed news, Hindustan Times. Bearing in mind he is an anti-Indian state entity, in what planet would using state-backed media make it neutral at all. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 19 March 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

---

• Amritpal Singh (activist) → Amritpal Singh
• Amritpal Singh → Amritpal Singh (disambiguation)

– Over the past one month, Amritpal Singh has gained more popularity and media coverage than any other of the Amritpals out there.
Along side a less known NBL basketball player, a domestic football player, a dead national level long jumper and a famous musician who is actually overwhelmingly known as AP Dhillon and not Amritpal, This page's subject is by far the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, which can also be demonstrated by [consolidated pageviews].
Even if this page is not deemed PRIMARY by consensus, he must not go by the name activist because hardly any sources call him that. Something like (separatist) could be used. >>> Extorc.talk 15:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: pages with content, such as Amritpal Singh, are inelibible to be new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. Amritpal Singh → Amritpal Singh (disambiguation) has been added to this request to satisfy that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree (No source for him as an Activist) SOMIJOSHI (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

*:Disagree He is clearly Leader and Acivist of Waris Punjab De and it well sourced. Princhest01 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Struck away double vote>>> Extorc.talk 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Capitals00 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nomination. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Agree But why not move the page to "Amritpal Singh Sandhu"? There will be no conflicts then. CalicoMo (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME suggests we rename to Amritpal Singh because this is the widespread name used in WP:RS. >>> Extorc.talk 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Looks like a good solution. (Sandhu is rarely used in news reports. Moeover adding the "Sandhu" surname doesn't solve the problem, because we would still need to redirect "Amritpal Singh" to it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per Kautilya3 → αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 04:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nomination. Pg 6475 ^TM 04:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support rename this page as Amritpal Singh Sandhu, the word activist is misleading. Any person threatening the unity of a federal state is a separatist. He may have been an activist, but his own interviews suggest otherwise Msolution (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Sandhu is not WP:COMMONNAME >>> Extorc.talk 10:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree Even if you think he is a separatist, he is still categorized as activist. Let's not base it on POV. Based on the facts, the correct title could be Amritpal Singh (Waris Punjab De). Princhest01 (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support with a change Most RS called him Khalistani Radical Sepratist BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  We're not going to use an inflammatory title sure to piss a lot of people off. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 03:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support He is not an activist at the very least he is an controversial figure. Hence he shouldn't be referred to as an activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataCrusade1999 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC) DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Even if he is controversial, he is still considered an activist or leader of Waris Punjab De. Princhest01 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support

Agreeing that the word 'activist' in the title is potentially misleading.

Not sure if this article's subject is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, in my opinion, changing the title to Amritpal Singh (separatist) would be more accurate. That being said, even if the title is changed to Amritpal Singh, it would depict the subject of the article better than the current title.

EnormityOP (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support I don't know whether this person will remain relevant in long term. The short-term popularity he has gained is because of his violent actions and police operation against him. Amritpal Singh (separatist) is a better option as per me.

Mixmon (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Long term relevance can be subject to future discussions. Today, he is the most Notable Amritpal. >>> Extorc.talk 10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

today he notable as "Bhai Amritpal Singh khalsa", that's how we Sikhs address a Sikh preacher. Dilpreet Singh ping  14:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

I dont see any reliable sources use this name. Kindly read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS, WP:V. >>> Extorc.talk 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If he's alive then for sure, however, his whereabouts are missing and one of police officer confirm [10] his arrest a fews days back and then change the statement. Dilpreet Singh ping  14:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

* Disagree He is an activist of Waris Punjab De and it's leader as well. It is well sourced. The correct title should be Amritpal Singh (activist) → Amritpal Singh (Waris Punjab De) Princhest01 2:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Removed repeat vote Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nom. Dhruv edits (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Radical" label

Are there any relevant guidelines on when it is appropriate to describe a subject as a "radical"? Trying to avoid an edit war. CalicoMo (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not the job of wikipedia editors to decide who should be described as radical, hero, god or something else WP:FORUM. Quote whatever he is described as in reliable secondary sources WP:RS. You can't post your own original research here WP:RS . 202.168.84.67 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no objective parameters to call some a "radical". I can find secondary sources that call him a radical. I can also find secondary sources that don't call him a radical. Who decides? CalicoMo (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

How do you gather that there are no "objective paramters"? If you have sources that contradict that he was radical, please bring them up. Otherwise, this is a hollow argument. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Large percentages of Sikhs support him, so he isn’t radical 2607:FEA8:CA1:2700:F959:9777:17B6:70F2 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not even one percent support him. Your claims are without source/baseless. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

your statement also lacks any sources aswell Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's look at opinions of some real experts-

Prof Jagroop Singh Sekhon, a political scientist, says, “We have always had a fringe but it has existed peacefully with the mainstream and performs a function of democracy.” Sekhon points out how most people in the Punjab countryside have not heard of the Khalistan referendum, a brainchild of Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, an American lawyer and founder of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ). “Pannu, who claims to be striving for Khalistan, has no support here in Punjab, he draws it from the diaspora. Which is why the first referendum was held in London and then in Canada.’’

Prof Manjit Singh from Panjab University says the generation that migrated to the West in the 1980s was quick to attain financial independence but it could never assimilate into the foreign culture. “They wanted to belong, so it led to a mushrooming of gurdwaras, which at times got hijacked by weekend Khalistanis. So, they are always part of some movement or the other related to Punjab. It could be for a stronger Punjab or for a separate Khalistan. It’s here that they find a sense of purpose and identity.’’

Ashutosh Kumar, a political scientist at Panjab University, says the Punjabis in the state are more pragmatic. “They have suffered the fallout of militancy. Even drugs are its byproduct. That is why you see little support for wannabe ideologues like Amritpal. People don’t want a return to violence.’’

In his 2021 book Blood for Blood: Fifty Years of the Global Khalistan Project, Canadian journalist Terry Milewski wrote how the Khalistan movement in Canada, the United Kingdom and India has been sustained for decades by Pakistan.

Source:Amritpal episode again shows lingering support for Khalistani sentiments abroad, as backing at home dries up Mixmon (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually most Punjabis didn't even know who he is until law enforcement agencies launched an investigation into him. The only people who knew him were his supporters. Smahwk (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Its not the editors job to examine objective parameters, we append information based on WP:RS, literally every single source cited in this page calls him a radical. Hence, he is a radical. >>> Extorc.talk 09:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

In which case you side with caution and not label him a Radical 31.125.46.248 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

All sources cite as radical and fits in generally agreed definition of radical (holding extreme views like secessionism, bearing arms, creating squad of armed men etc. Plus fugitive from law enforcement agencies).

Hence the term radical is justified and will be retained CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

You are just using inflammatory POV. Please define the word radical. Bearing arms and separatism isn't against the law. Princhest01 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is against the law in India. Amritpal Singh has been slapped with National Security Act (meant for extremely dangerous criminals or terror groups) and is a fugitive as of now with whereabouts unknown. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Those are all allegations until proven in the court of law. Even the Supreme Court of India has agreed having opinion of separatism is fundamental freedom of speech. So, please don't create your own laws and convictions about somebody. They are still innocent until proven guilty. Princhest01 (talk) 02:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"separatism isn't against the law" Do you understand what separatism is? >>> Extorc.talk 17:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I do very well. Having opinions of separatism isn't against the law in India, according to Supreme Court. Care to look yourself? Princhest01 (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's assume he wasn't a radical for the sake of the argument. There are no reliable sources to say he is an activist. Even that tagline should be removed. LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There are tons of references to him as radical and he fits in the generally accepted textbook definition of radical. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary there is hardly any reference or justification for him to be said to be an 'activist'. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Most appropriate tag is Fugitive as it is matter of fact. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes the tag should be either fugitive or radical. Not activist. LakshmanReddy72 (talk) 09:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

How do you know it is a matter of fact he is a fugitive? That's a claim by state authorities- the court hasn't declared him fugitive yet. As a matter of fact, he is an activist of Waris Punjab De(Heirs of Punjab) - and this is indisputable. Princhest01 (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. Please don't use one-sided sources and incredible references that have no fact-checking to enhance POV when credible references have called him "activist." https://www.vice.com/en/article/ak3z4e/amritpal-singh-india-khalistan-sikh-punjab Princhest01 (talk) 14:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Singh has reportedly been caught, the manhunt is an excuse to shutdown internet and suppress protests

This report by South Asia Index says exclusive sources have informed South Asia Index that Amritpal Singh is already in the custody of Indian Intelligence. He was arrested on the first day of the manhunt, but his detention has not been revealed to the media. Instead, a decoy manhunt is underway to avoid any potential unrest in the region.

Should we include this in the article? Solblaze (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I can't verify the reliablity of the source but it seems suspicious. "Editorial staff" got the info from "exclusive sources" Mixmon (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a known or authenticated or licensed or credible news establishment or source. Hence can't be included. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Why then references with unknown sources defining him as radical having links with ISI, who was creating human bomb squads, without evidence are are being included? Princhest01 (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this source is reliable enough that we can take its exclusive source's word for now. WP:WAIT >>> Extorc.talk 15:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Solblaze I support its inclusion. Of course certain users here will be against its inclusion because it goes against their pro-Indian government narrative they are pushing on this article. Sources giving the perspective of the other side are being unduly criticized, questioned, and defamed by certain users whilst sources for the other side are just allowed willy-nilly, it seems. All-in-all, this article needs heavy review over its blatant bias issues by third-parties and uninvolved users who are well-versed in WP rules and guidelines, not ones of a certain ideological bend or affiliation. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems you can't argue ethically without calling other editors biased, pro-government, ideologically affiliated etc. Mixmon (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon Just calling a spade a spade when I see it. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Nobody can do anything if "narrative of the other side" does not appear in reliable media sources. Citing these fringe websites would be equivalent of citing portals like Opindia or Hindupost. You can't just add any random website to wiki articles. Mixmon (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The South Asia Index has never been cited anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not going to start now, in a highly contentious subject. Moreover, they are just peddling a conspiracy theory with a straight face. It is out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

So, you think citing the references with unsourced individuals calling Amritpal an ISI agent who was making human bombs without any legitimate evidence is not peddling a conspiracy? Princhest01 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The references are amply given with credible sources of extremely institutionalised and established independent media houses both national and international CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The references mention unsourced individuals and officials without any legal authority to say that. It's a POV. It violates WP:RS policy of fact checking and reliability. The rationale for keeping these unsubstantiated references seems pretty low, to spread POV and therefore should be removed on basis of failure to establish credibility. Princhest01 (talk) 19:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Princhest01 Agreed and having those serious criminal

allegations in the intro lede of a WP:BLP is a gross violation of WP:BLPCRIME. It needs to be rewritten and moved. Does not belong in the intro lede, it has seemingly been placed there to present an overwhelmingly negative image of the article subject to unknowing Wikipedia readers. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In that DRN someone mentioned another fringe source - its attcaking other media sources (just like their proponents who are attacking other editors) and quoting some twitter user, no info on who has written this page. I am putting this message because I know this source is coming here for discussion and I am not at all interested in discussing these activist sources. @ThethPunjabi atleast find something which can meet WP:RS Mixmon (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment South Asia Index is a Twitter handle with a website - hardly an RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion from an outsider

Much of this discussion and content disputes on the page seems to revolve around the reliability of various sources. Without getting too far into the weeds, I'd observe that a source may have a bias as a matter of editorial policy, and yet still be reliable for factual news reporting. If the discussion here becomes intractable, bring it to WP:RSN for a more dispassionate assessment. Banks Irk (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable sources tag removed

@Kautilya3, you removed the reliable sources tag from the reactions section here, and you also removed the "extra judicial killings" sentence. So are we treating this source as a mere WSO statement? That is fine with me if that is the case if we limit the usage to this only. >>> Extorc.talk 09:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The current version of the article is using CNN article for WSO statement. Mixmon (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Alr. Must've been a confusion. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 10:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did that as per point #3 at WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Section title with "controversies"

I haven't yet caught up whether majority of RS describe these as controversies, but I think the section should be retitled more appropriately or the material should be integrated into other sections WP:CSECTION, also because this is a WP:BLP — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Confirmation of Arrest by police

one of police officer confirm [11] his arrest and then change the statement later to support the state narrative. He's is consider to be transfer to outside punjab. Dilpreet Singh ping  14:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

A tweet is not a reliable source. Kingly read WP:RS. >>> Extorc.talk 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not the tweet rather video in the tweet, I'll post actual news from where it came however since state media has changed their statement to build false narrative it might be deleted like other news. Dilpreet Singh ping  15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)

Yes, Videos in a tweet is not a reliable source. Drawing conclusions based on those videos violates WP:OR. It appears as though you haven't actually read a single policy page on this platform. >>> Extorc.talk 15:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't judge me what I know or not, I said I'll post the news based on the video if it still there. shouldn't you read carefully before commenting? Dilpreet Singh ping  15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish ThethPunjabi we need past news which state media deleted, news ran for some time with above video and was then changed. Dilpreet Singh ping  15:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Deleted or Rescinded Items which have been withdrawn by the issuers don't constitute reference or source.

(Only presently available reliable references can be used, not photos/videos etc.) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with that, show me wiki rule on this, let me hear a scenerio when information is changed and is not stacked rather eliminated. This is a conflict as state's narrative is he's missing and they first confirmed he was arrested. this could lead his extra judicial killing with world will know . Dilpreet Singh ping  16:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

A lot of references on Wikipedia are archives of broken/deleted links. @Dilpreet Singh, you can try your luck with the wayback machine. Unless the publishers have left a notice stating they've withdrawn an article explicitly because it's factually incorrect you should be OK to use it. Solblaze (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I can help you this time as you made a straightforward demand (except the usual state media jibes). Here - [12][13][14][15]. However I don't know how exactly you will use them Mixmon (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

appreciates this search , since article is protected I can not make a change. here's my suggestion: either under the crack down or a new segment about his arrest should be made to high light how state is playing around his detention. as of now this is a most discussed part on the state media and they keep manipulating. Dilpreet Singh ping  16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think a small line can be added in Crackdown section like - "Initially Indian media reported that he was arrested but Punjab police later clarified that he has evaded arrest"

As mentioned in the updated Wire article - An earlier version of this story said Amritpal Singh was arrested. The Punjab police later clarified that this was not the case. @Extorc @Kautilya3 Mixmon (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it can be mentioned that the media first reported that he was arrested, and later changed it to evading arrrest after clarification by the Punjab Police. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

with that said, how would you distinguish a propaganda from the reality. First news came saying & confirm he was arrested. then state set up new narrative saying he was elude 80,000 officers , how come that's posibble and even law of court raised issue on this narrative. Dilpreet Singh ping  17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

here's a advocate of warris punjab confirming the same [16] Dilpreet Singh ping  17:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

They didnt confirm his arrest. For example India Today article clearly stated - Punjab Police has so far neither confirmed or denied whether Singh has been apprehended or not. Mixmon (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Kautilya3 why are you adding the information without discussing, what proof do you have he ran away on motorcycle ? WP:RAA I need more moderators on this article. CC DaxServer ScottishFinnishRadish ThethPunjabi Dilpreet Singh ping  18:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

[17] Mixmon (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

so do you recognize the face of both the person in question who flee ? FYI , person who's driving is claimed as papalpreet singh [18] here's his latest picture on social media. do you see difference ? Dilpreet Singh ping  18:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes and reliable sources have reported that Papalpreet helped him to escape [19][20] Where's the issue? Mixmon (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

video is from punjab police as well, question become how wiki handle this kind of information, we know that state is running a propaganda, possibly, their intentions are to eliminate him or already done. once you show him he's eluded then it became a target and could be shown latter in a extra judicial killing. Dilpreet Singh ping  17:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"we know that state is running a propaganda" we who? >>> Extorc.talk 17:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

well, if some thing change over night and suddenly all news outlets change the statement it means something to normal people. Dilpreet Singh ping  17:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Just finished expanding the article

Hello, I just finished expanding the article. Feel free to critique, copyedit, and improve upon what I had added. I know we all got a little heated earlier on but I am optimistic we can all still work cooperatively & collaborate together on this article. *Edit* I have to redact the above statement considering the conversation below where immaturity is shining through and certain editors want to continue arguing, belittling, and personally attacking me when I try to extend an olive branch ThethPunjabi (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I also want to note that most of the text in the "Reaction" section has been critical of the authorities during the crackdown, perhaps an editor can add any views by notable people who praised the actions of the authorities as noted in a reliable source to ensure this section is not imbalanced towards one side. ThethPunjabi (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is mostly propaganda and will get eventually deleted. It is a biogaphy page. You are writing nothing about the man, just various random opinions that you happen to like. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I extend an olive branch and this is the reaction I get. Are you accusing me of propaganda and bias? Everything I added is from reliable sources and I also added sentences praising the crackdown and also a sentence of the British foreign secretary criticizing the Sikh protestors. The article has balance issues from the start and so I updated it with reliable sources to balance it so both sides are fairly presented. Substantiate your claim regarding me as I also do not take kindly to being accused of bias unfairly. I also wrote plenty about Amritpal, especially regarding the drug campaigns. Don’t accuse me again without due cause. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The widespread addition of reactions is very WP:UNDUE. "avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views...as much of or as detailed a description" means that adding views of Jagmeet Singh, who RS states is a pro Khalistani anti india canadian mp isn't particularly appropriate. >>> Extorc.talk 07:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc Jagmeet Singh is a leader of one of the largest political parties in Canada and is notable enough to be included in the article. Definitely not a “minor” figure. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly my observations since yesterday. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The reactions section is heavily bloated. I have no issues with adding a few reactions but overloading it like this is useless and does nothing to actually talk about the person about whom this page is. Most of this should be trimmed and we should focus on the crackdown instead. >>> Extorc.talk 07:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone will realise that there are several additions in the article which do not directly or even indirectly concern to Amritpal Singh. Attempts have been made to convert this article into an umbrella article for various indirectly connected issues.

Needs a lot of cleanup CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want to extend an olive branch, try being WP:NPOV. And read, WP:BALANCE to understand what the term means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 You are the one who is failing to meet both of those policies in your edits to this article. I am the one who has made edits covering both sides. I haven’t seen a single edit of yours that presented the pro-Amritpal side of the story, not even once. So self-reflect before you accuse others. Also, your snarky and belittling tone is not necessary, learn to communicate civilly. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I meant I agree with @Kautilya3 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Also, since you enjoy citing Wikipedia policies, let’s take a look at the WP:BALANCE policy you referred to and quote its contents:

“Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.”

The previous version of the article before my edits was completely lacking presentation of the pro-Amritpal side at all, only a mere single sentence or two about his anti-drug campaigns. Everything I have added since then has been from reliable sources and addresses this obvious gap. I will further add that the balance issues in this article is not only noticed by me but many, many other users as well. So learn to operate in consensus and stop ignoring the concerns of others editors and try to focus on the content, not personally attacking your fellow editors (especially when they try to reconcile differences). Be better. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is still a sentence or two about his anti-drug compaigns. A section header has been added and a citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about prior to my edits. This article had a meagre one or two sentences that presented the subject favourably at all. The rest of it was all negative. Nothing about the reasoning on why he is popular amongst the people of Punjab, nothing on why he has so much support, nothing on why many are his followers. Rather it was filled with negativity and slander, which in itself is fine but not if it’s completely unbalanced in that direction. Furthermore, the intro lede is terrible in its current state. You have extremely serious allegations from “anonymous sources” of brainwashing and training suicide bombers being taken as fact, this should not even be in the intro lede, it is clearly going to give the wrong impression to readers, it needs to be moved to the controversy section. How does the article meet WP:BLP at all with this in mind? You are supposed to assume every crime the subject is accused of is innocent until proven in court according to that policy. And now you are discussing with others on adding in allegations of sexual misconduct and removing my constructive and well-sourced edits which provided much needed balance, further unbalancing the article. I was one who expanded upon his anti-drug campaign and added the section header, btw. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"Nothing about the reasoning on why he is popular amongst the people of Punjab" - This is a very generalised statement and I wonder if you have any reliable survey data to back this claim up, support from the "people of Punjab" is very different from diasporic Sikhs or some organizations. Some RS which addresses this - [21][22] Mixmon (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon I already added sources to the article that heavily delve into his popularity amongst the people of Punjab. Look at the VICE article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 @Extorc @CrusaderForTruth2023 You three do realize this article is in clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME when criminal accusations are presented as fact, especially in an intro lede? The sentences about the brainwashing and suicide bomber training needs to be rewritten and moved.

“A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocentuntil convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”

So tell me, which court has convicted Amritpal Singh of the crimes the intro

lede is accusing him of, making accusations that he is engaged in terrorist acts? Also, your proposed inclusion of sexual misconduct/abuse allegations need to be considered in light of this policy. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We are not passing judgements here. It's clearly written "it has been reported" or "alleged". The language is neutral from third POV. No need of editing is needed. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

“Reported” needs to be changed in to “accused” and those allegations have no business being in the intro lede. WP:BLP further states:

“Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to”

What purpose does having serious unproven criminal allegations in the intro lede serve other than to present an overwhelmingly negative first impression to unknowing Wikipedia readers? Blatant violation of the policy. Those allegations belong in the “controversy” section. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also by controversy, I realised that the Controversy Section has very cleverly being removed from the main section and concealed a subsection although there is plenty of substance in the Controversy section to exist as an independent section. @Extorc@Kautilya3 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

For that matter, I think the consensus over the past week has been that the wordings are correct and need no modifications and are supplemented with enough credible references. @Kautilya3@Extorc will agree. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 What consensus? When have the concerns of me and many other editors like @Solblaze , @Dilpreet Singh , @CalicoMo , @CanadianSingh1469 , @Jattlife121 , @Usingh0663 , @Gubeeno123 , and @Princhest01 been considered? All

of the above users have voiced concerns about the balance of this article yet their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and have been ignored. This is not how consensus operates in the slightest bit.

According to the WP:CONSENSUS policy page: “Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.”

When has any effort been made to address or discuss productively many users’ legitimate concerns with the content of this article? I have seen some try to start discussions on this very talk page but they were personally attacked, belittled, argued with, and ignored. This is not a productive, fair, and healthy way to behave here on Wikipedia. Everyone needs to be willing to hear the viewpoints of every editor and consider them fairly, not disregard them and still claim to have consensus. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

So, you can't change the article also without consensus. It will be reverted. If not, I will revert any changes to any well referenced sentence. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 That equally applies to any of your proposed changes to referenced material to the article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not tried to changed or alter any of your or anyone else's well referenced credible additions which are relevant to the article. I have not even disputed any of your additions till now. Peace.  CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have pointed out the references included have not done proper fact-checking required as per WP:Verifiaility to establish their credibility and therefore should not be included. Fake news and baseless claims relating to ISI and human bomb squads don't adhere to WP:Verifiability. In addition, WP:Biographies of living persons clearly states that term used to describe public figures accused of crime should "alleged." Last, but not the least, the tone of current version is completely set against the Wikipedia's policies. None of these concerns and violations -which I have pointed out on numerous occasions- have been addressed for us to reach a consensus. Princhest01 (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Let us delete everything then. Because for a Criminal Fugitive almost everything will be negatively worded. Don't make nonsense argument. Your sympathy lies with him does not give you the right to whitewash him.

Till he is caught and bought to court, the negative accusations carry more weight. (For a fugitive on the run is considered guilty prima facie till he surrenders). CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I haven't agreed about that sentence. I haven't studied the sources on that yet. But it is not explained in the body. So that needs to be done first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we all can agree on the fact that the wordings are pretty neutral which we have used in the introduction of the article. And they are supplemented by enough references (multiple references for every word or sentence used). Doesn't merit any discussion for change.

Secondly, for a person on the run from law, the argument of innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold in law. A fugitive with a reward on his head is considered a criminal till he surrenders and presents his version to courts. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 You said (quote): “Secondly, for a person on the run from law, the argument of innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold in law. A fugitive with a reward on his head is considered a criminal till he surrenders and presents his version to courts.”

you do realize this does not matter on Wikipedia, you must follow the rules stated in WP:BLPCRIME, there are no exceptions. You cannot prematurely assume that he is guilty of these crimes before the allegations are proven in court as the policy itself states. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to argue on this. You are free to add your contributions to the article which are relevant to the issue as you have been doing since yesterday, nobody stopped you. If you attempt to unilaterally alter other's contributions which are well referenced, I will revert it. That's my final stance. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The policy is for individuals who are not public figures. Mixmon (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon No, the following sentences of the policy still apply to living public figure articles: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.” The sentences immediately after this are what you are thinking of. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You can't manipulate policies to favour yourself. It clearly mentions "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Your claim is the allegations should not be mentioned but that part does not apply to pulic figures. If you're unable to comprehend what's written then I can't help. Mixmon (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon First of all, read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH because you keep making negative assumptions about the motives of your fellow editors without due cause. Also, learn to be civil in your communication. Second of all, I never said the allegations should not be mentioned nor deleted from the article, I simply said that the policy still states that we have to presume innocence for all allegations for public figures, which that policy discusses in the sentences I had quoted earlier. I never made the argument you are now accusing me of. I also have stated that the article is in violation of WP:BLP because two serious criminal allegations are presented in the intro lede of the article which may be cited but the sources do not hold up to scrutiny in the slightest when the source fails to disclose the validity of their claims nor which “anonymous source” they obtained it from. Therefore, it is not a verifiable source and can not be used to support such serious criminal allegations in a biographical article of a living person, especially in the intro lede. Having these allegations in the intro lede also violates WP:BALANCE, as it is written to give a premature, overwhelmingly negative impression for the reader of the person who is the topic of the article. BLP can not be written purely to attack the person, it is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"when the source fails to disclose the validity of their claims nor which “anonymous source” they obtained it from" This clearly shows you haven't read WP:RS and WP:V. The entire point of having RS is that we can believe these "anonymous sources". If we were to drop all these anonymous sources, Wikipedia will stop functioning overnight. >>> Extorc.talk 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I wonder how many times we have cited WP:RS in this talk page, it doesn't seem productive anymore. Let them complain about this in WP:RSN. Mixmon (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:Biographies of living persons states the term used for a public figure accused of crime is "alleged" not "reported" - and "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported to." None of this is currently being adhered to Wikipedia guidelines. In addition to that, WP:Verifiability is being seriously violated using references with poor fact checking. Princhest01 (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sir, reading the policy to its end is important, it clearly states that we must only apply this reasoning of the person is not a public figure. You cannot twist policy in your way. >>> Extorc.talk 13:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

At best, I can add more references for the lines or words in the article. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Till the person remains absconding, the overall outlook will be negative. I guess even WP:BALANCE is not applicable. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Under the Indian law, only Courts can declare him fugitive. In addition, the Wikipedia policies require accusations against a public figure accused of crime to be termed as "alleged" not "reported." In addition, the denial of allegations by the subject need to be stated as well according to Wikipedia. The current version's tone blatantly violates the NPOV, WP:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and WP:Verifiability. Princhest01 (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

One-Sided Unsourced References

The information is heavily written with POV. For example, only one sided incredible references- without showing any evidence are being used to character assassinate him and to justify Police brutality. Please provide alternative references as well or edit incredible references loaded with hearsay and fictitious allegations and make it comply with NPOV. PrinChest01 (talk) 3:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No evidence he was training 'human bomb' squads. Should not be using Indian-state backed media as references.

The evidence used by DNA India and Hindustan Times and various Indian-state backed media is not true. No matter what side you are on, can we all agree that using Indian news media for an anti-Indian activist is not the right way to go if we want a balanced impartial article? The article is locked with this blatant lie from Indian-state backed media; Indian News Media is ranked 133 in the World Press Freedom Index in 2022, slightly above Afghanistan, using them as authentic references for this particular individual is blatantly false.

Should not be using Indian-state backed media as references. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

These are all independent media. The only state owned or backed media in India is DD or PIB. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

I understand you are Indian yourself so you may have preconceived notions of independence for Indian media, but this is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_India

Sorry to say, but almost all Indian news media is subject to harsh restrictions by the central government. Also, not claiming they are owned by the state, I'm saying that they are espousing state-backed information. In any case, would you not agree that using Indian state-backed media, which is obviously going to be biased towards the unity of India, as references for an Indian separatist is not going to make the article impartial and balanced? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, after reading both articles; which is obviously one-sided, they give NO EVIDENCE for these claims as they do not give any reference to any source, they are literally just claiming it in the article. What independent News media can make such bold claims with no evidence? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but since all the items are well referenced, they will not be removed. If you want to dispute the respective websites, there are different pages for that, not here. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, okay since you are claiming they are both 'well referenced', why don't you give me the references these articles used for these claims? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Uproot Tyranny, that is a ridiculous ask. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to ask for references used by a news article for the claims made in a news article? How can anyone trust Indian News media at face value, especially about this particular subject? Go read a BBC article, every claim is referenced to a source. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uproot Tyranny One article claims the source is “Punjab Police” (okay, we are taking what the opposing side is saying at face value without evidence in a WP:BLP?) and the other claims “[multiple] intelligence agencies based on intelligence input” (yet failed to name a single one or official which provided the info), tells you all you need to know, really. The two sources are not even consistent with each-other, both claiming different sources, which makes them even more suspect. Not a reliable source at all. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously. Wiki Articles are done based on credible established sources generally national and global established media. It immaterial and also impossible to go into the investigation of the source itself. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

How are these allegations well-referenced? These are from unsourced individuals and simply hearsay and propaganda. These references are not credible and should be immediately removed. Princhest01 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The references list unknown sources, blatantly don't confirm to WP:Verifiability required for fact-checking, are non-credible to be included here and simply fake news. Can the admin stop including references that haven't done proper fact checking? Princhest01 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uproot Tyranny Indeed, if you read the specific articles cited, these are the claimed sources: “Punjab Police” and “security agencies based on intelligence input” – no evidence whatsoever is presented in the article. Like you mentioned, Indian media is nowhere near the standards of true independent media outlets, such as the ones found in Western countries, and they are all influenced and restricted, sometimes controlled by BJP-allies like Adani, who recently took over one of the last decent and independent media outlets. Claims from the opposing side is accepted as truth in a WP:BLP and certain users here have consistently ignored WP:BALANCE and WP:CONSENSUS when the issue has been brought up many, many times. It is clear that the article has been written and maintained to be a hit-piece to present an overwhelmingly negative image of the topic subject to unknowing readers of Wikipedia, not an honest attempt to present the subject fairly and reliably whilst following Wikipedia rules, procedures; and guidelines. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Uproot Tyranny If you have problem with any source used in this article please start a discussion at WP:RSN. This particular thing has been discussed many times here in the talk page and I am not in favour of repeating it. Mixmon (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Mixmon,

After glancing through your talk page and seeing how you've attempted to create pages for Far-right Hindu nationalist, Anand Ranganathan and Abhijit Iyer Mitra, I'm not surprised you are trying to subvert the truth about this article. This is a blatant attempt to mischaracterise this individual and must be brought to Admin attention. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Uproot Tyranny Feel free to open a conflict of interest case regarding the above user at the conflict of interest noticeboard at: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard

I can provide evidence as well. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The same can be opened for you also. It's better that you stay off this path. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 Feel free to elaborate the justification for your accusation against me, then. Clearly you are in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND now. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to debate or argue with you anymore. It's a waste of time. I have made my stance very clear on this issue multiple times. Period. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Do you understand that in COI/N you would have to prove that the editors you accuse of having a COI are affiliated with a political/religious/financial organization that is opposed to Amritpal?
because WP:COI states Conflict of interest is editing "about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships" and
WP:COINOTBIAS clearly states that "COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships" >>> Extorc.talk 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc I’ve already given my case (with evidence in the form of diffs and links) yesterday regarding the COI allegations. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi Where is that? I would like to see it. >>> Extorc.talk 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

here, you too are part of the allegation. Mixmon (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Well I'm tired of these personal attack, now Amritpal fans don't even try to understand wiki policies. Do whatever you want you are free to complain at noticeboard of your choice WP:PNBD Mixmon (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's tiresome. I have also come to the conclusion that argument is useless. We won't allow any change to the points which are referenced by credible sources. That's it. Rest they are free to go to whichever place they want and keep complaining.

For me this is becoming a waste of time. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@ThethPunjabi brought up this from WP:BALANCE policy: “Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.”

This article is clearly one-sided with numerous accounts pointing it out. There has to be neutrality. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 19:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Note that the discussion has been continued in the ECP edit request below. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have re-added the "per intelligence reports" at the end of the lead paragraph, which somebody seems to have removed. I found the sources speculative an it is an issue that bothers a lot of editors here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The references largely list them as "unconfirmed sources," "unsourced individuals" or some unscrupulous "security agencies." Not even a single individual or intelligence agency has made a statement to authenticate this claim. Therefore, these references violate the WP:Verifiability as they have failed to do proper fact-checking and need to be removed. Princhest01 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Reaction section

Is a statement of SAD(A) leader Simranjit Singh Mann to the reactions section WP:DUE? I believe that the reactions section is extremely overloaded. It must be trimmed down especially removing the overloaded khalistani stuff. @Kautilya3 @DaxServer >>> Extorc.talk 08:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Completely Agree CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You can trim it as you see fit. I am not going to worry about the reactions section until I finish working through the biography sections. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Cool Enough CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Unilateral Action Taken

Someone edited/deleted content which is under discussion (no consensus reached) unilaterally. Not acceptable. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc@Kautilya3 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Link to the diff? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Latest Edit. Can Check.CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe a reasonable case could be made against too much weight given to the Human Bomb Squads along with BLPCRIME. But I'd still say that because one of the primary reasons of the crackdown is these findings, we should keep in the lead that these are just allegations. >>> Extorc.talk 09:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The language was pretty much the same. My point also being that because this is under so intense debate since days, no unilateral edits should be allowed. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It was clearly mentioned as "reported". Nobody passed a judgement. Plus when something is under so heated debate, it's not done that someone swoops down and deletes or modifies the same without even discussing a word. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Plus, whatever is there is the statement of the law enforcement agencies now (the Director General of Police) has openly said these facts. So it's pretty much clear on an extremely authentic source (State Police) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DaxServer removed it wit a clear edit summary. He is right. I think some of the stuff belongs in the lead, e.g., Anandpur Khalsa Fauj, needs to go there. But the "human bombs" is vague and hazy. I couldn't find any independent corroboration of it.

Even if something belongs in the lead, it shouldn't be randomly inserted into it, without a thorough discussion in the body. See MOS:LEAD. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Shall I send the references? CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also the links to ISI part was very well corroborated and very well is specific enough to be part of lead. As it is basis of his manhunt and charges of NSA. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References to the Human Bomb part. Can rephrase it as suicide bombers which is a pretty much accepted terminology for the same.

www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/khalistani-leader-amritpal-singh-waris-punjab-de-rehab-centres-human-bombs-gun-culture-punjab-2348956-2023-03-20 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

More Refs on Suicide Bomb part.

https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-amritpal-singh-manhunt-khalistani-leader-brainwashed-youth-become-human-bombs-suicide-attacks-waris-punjab-de-3031019

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/khalistan-sympathiser-amritpal-singh-was-preparing-khadkoos-stockpiling-arms-intelligence-dossier-489503

(The Tribune is the largest and one of the oldest media houses in the state of Punjab) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Some more references to the ISI part (these are all in addition to the original references)

https://www.livemint.com/news/world/paks-isi-brain-behind-pushing-amritpal-singh-back-to-india-report-11679186627727.html CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

On the ISI part. Here are some references.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/isi-planted-amritpal-singh-to-fan-separatist-sentiments-push-drugs-into-punjab/articleshow/98961166.cms

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/from-britain-nri-to-isi-handler-people-behind-amritpal-singhs-meteoric-rise-as-khalistani-leader-2350434-2023-03-23 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Link to statement of the Inspector General of Police.

https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/nsa-slapped-on-amritpals-five-associates-suspicision-of-paks-isi-involvement-ig-sukhchain-gill-489742 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you need more @Kautilya3 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also @Extorc CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyways, I agree with the last part hence will add a good summary to the body first before adding to the lead. Cheers. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The WP:ONUS for inclusion lies on those arguing for inclusion. Please state the precise content you want included, and provide quotations in the WP:RS that directly support the text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I will do it myself when I get time as the precise language needs to be figured out lest once again someone makes a comment over it. You can review it then. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Times of India is an unreliable source with a bias in favour of the Indian government's POV. Solblaze (talk) 10:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Where is the proof of your accusation of bias. Get it then we will talk on this. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

If you bothered to read my comment, you'd see that it links to WP:RSPS which states The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government. The publication is also known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage. Solblaze (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 There are enough reliable sources on this ISI, Bomber thing like Indian Express, The Hindu, Hindustan Times etc. Maybe no consensus ones can be used as supportive sources. Mixmon (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You are sitting on a landmine here. As I have repeatedly mentioned, Wiki seems to have a heavy left leaning bias that will oppose anything seemingly pro government or even neutral. It's a bubble which needs bursting.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-propaganda CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You can discuss this at WP:RSN and challenge the previous consensus. We can't change things here which should be decided there. Mixmon (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't need to be changed for the sake of this article. We are using sources good enough from WP pov CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Non Indian sources and the "Radical" label

Since the neutrality of Indian sources is being doubted, I'd like to turn to other (mostly western) sources for this topic.

At a cursory glance, neutral sources simply call him a "Sikh separatist leader," and do not label him "radical." At most, TIME refers to him as "hardline," which has a different meaning altogether.

• Mogul, Rhea (2023-03-22). "Khalistan: The outlawed Sikh separatist movement that has Indian authorities on edge". CNN. Retrieved 2023-03-24. A colossal police hunt for a Sikh separatist who has revived calls for an independent homeland in India's Punjab state has stoked fears of violence and revived painful memories of a bloody insurgency that killed thousands. Amritpal Singh, 30, has been on the run since March 18 after he was accused by police of attempted murder, obstruction of law enforcement and creating "disharmony" in society.

• "Amritpal Singh: Sikh separatist preacher continues to elude police". BBC News. 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-24. Internet services remain restricted in parts of India's northern Punjab state for a fourth day as thousands of police continue their search for Sikh separatist leader Amritpal Singh.

• Mogul, Rhea (2023-03-20). "India cuts internet to 27 million as Punjab police hunt Sikh separatist". CNN. Retrieved 2023-03-24. Indian authorities have blocked internet access for about 27 million people in the state of Punjab for a fourth straight day – one of the country's most extensive blackouts in recent years – as police search for a Sikh separatist on the run. The Punjab government initially announced a 24-hour internet ban on Saturday as authorities launched an operation to arrest Amritpal Singh, a popular leader within the separatist Khalistan movement that seeks to establish a sovereign state for followers of the Sikh religion.

• "What to Know About the Massive Political Manhunt in India". Time. 2023-03-23. Retrieved 2023-03-24. For six consecutive days, authorities in India have been on a nationwide hunt for Amritpal Singh, a hardline Sikh leader from the northwestern state of Punjab who rose to prominence for supporting the Khalistan movement, which calls for the creation of an independent Sikh homeland.

Solblaze (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not about Indian or non-Indian, it is about the sources which can be considered reliable as per WP:RS. Some sources which were discussed in past and are listed as reliable in WP:RSPSS which call him "Radical" - The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Wire Mixmon (talk) 10:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Amritpal Singh, a radical Sikh leader Proven wrong >>> Extorc.talk 10:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. This is a useless debate because the definition of Radical is pretty clear. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS for inclusion lies on those arguing for inclusion. Please state the precise content you want included, and provide quotations in the WP:RS that directly support the text. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC) (got misplaced)

I guess there has been not less than 20 references of every sort, from national to international on this aspect. Disputing side doesn't have one single. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Can also refer to the latest one of Reuters by @Extorc CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

There's one non Indian article calling him radical (against four sources not), while the rest of the references are Indian, something others here have objected to. WP:UNDUE is to be considered. Solblaze (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

One more for you [23] Mixmon (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah here it is. I think we can find even more. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Illogical argument. Can't say X source is good and Y source is bad based on your whims.

No basis to blatantly discard any Indian source. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

That's my original point dissenters here are not going by any wiki policy but considering their own assumption as a policy. Mixmon (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

One more from The Guardian (Article written by a Sikh, so you can't even claim bias now)

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/21/punjab-internet-blackout-hunt-sikh-preacher-amritpal-singh-sandhu CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess this one absolutely seals the radical label @Extorc@Mixmon@Kautilya3 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

In any case, those arguing against the use of the term "radical" will have to produce sources which delve into this matter in detail - Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If reliable source X argues that the use of "radical" is incorrect and reliable source Y still considers him to be a radical, we can conclude that the use of the word "radical" is disputed. Mixmon (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no stake in this article, and I don't know why you're invoking communal associations. Solblaze (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The meaning of "radical" from the Oxford English Dictionary:

b. Politics. Advocating thorough or far-reaching political or social reform; representing or supporting an extreme section of a party; spec. (also with capital initial) (a) British belonging to, supporting, or associated with the group or movement which called for reform of the parliamentary system and other radical social and political changes in the late 18th and early 19th cent. (cf. radical reform n. at Compounds 2); (b) U.S. belonging to a faction of the Republican Party seeking extreme action against the South during the Civil War and Reconstruction. Now more generally: revolutionary, esp. left-wing.

c. Characterized by independence of or departure from what is usual or traditional; progressive, unorthodox, or innovative in outlook, conception, design, etc.

"Radical" as a noun:

a. Politics. Also with capital initial. A person who advocates radical or far-reaching political or social reform; a member of a political party or part of a party pursuing such aims. Now also: an (esp. left-wing) revolutionary. Also in extended use. Cf. radical reformer n. at Compounds 2.

In my view, "radical" is less than "extremist", but tending along the same direction. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Some people have argued that since the international rating agencies have downgraded India's press freedom (quite rightly), that implies that Indian sources have become unreliable. It doesn't follow. The reduction of press freedom simply means that the press may not be able to write everything they want to write. It doesn't mean that they write lies. Moreover, plenty of journalists and media organisations have been battling the hounding by the state. You can't paint things with a broad brush.

From what I have seen (and DaxServer can provide his views).

• Indian Express has been doing a splendid job of navigating the narrow space. On this topic, I see three good journalists continuously researching and writing ever since Waris Panjab De started.
• The Wire is a well-known anti-establishment paper. Even though they don't have a lot of people, all the writers that cover these topics are quite excellent.
• The Times of India is recognised as pro-government at WP:RSP, but I think they have been taking a middle course reasonably well.
• India Today is now practically useless.
• The Tribune (India) is good for local information, but they have just printed PTI news releases on the Delhi pronouncements, without any vetting of ther own.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

PTI is pretty solid too. And it's considered pretty neutral and sometimes anti-establishment. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

also The Hindu Mixmon (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, another source labelled as 'anti-establishment'.

Also the simplest point being why the emphasis on being anti government or anti establishment in the first place.

It's pretty bad practice because that means you have labelled the government as wrong and discredited the intelligence or police agencies which is not at all done.

Prima Facie for a person who is riding laden with arms, who is absconding for days now without a trace, who is a open admirer of 'militants' and styles himself after another militant, the bias if any should be in favour of agencies not against. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I would really like this nonsense to end. We CANNOT assume malice by government just like that especially for a known fugitive. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV. Solblaze (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, what is the ground for saying India Today is 'practically useless'(Don't insert personal biases) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 This to start with: The submission of India Today Group — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

You realise that the Caravan is itself one of the most disputed and unreliable sources? This is a clear case where I can see neutral and pro establishment sources been thrown as unreliable and any source that is hounding the government or is "Left Leaning" in its views as credible.

Been a good learning to see the inherent bias of Wiki Editing itself today. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 11:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to confirm, Is The Caravan ever discussed at RSN? Mixmon (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Sanger was correct after all (unless you say NYP is also biased LoL)

https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/wikipedia-co-founder-says-site-is-now-propaganda-for-left-leaning-establishment/ CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 See WP:NYPOST (I think we can now stop the detour and come back to this article's discussion) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Here. Mirror for everyone.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-propaganda CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you except for TOI, which is still sketchy to me considering they're known to accept payments from persons and entities in exchange for positive coverage Solblaze (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

(see WP:TOI) Solblaze (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, source for your claim? CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

CrusaderForTruth2023 see WP:TOI. While I agree that the whole idea that we cant use Indian sources here is nonsense, it is also true that we cant use every Indian source. TOI is sort of a grey area IMO, it can be used but avoid using it for something likely to be controvertial. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Again the same query, "Pro Government" is bad, "Anti-government" is good. That's a bias in itself. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying good or bad, Wikipedia policy is to present all viewpoints in a balanced manner and not consider any of them as fact. Solblaze (talk) 08:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I guess we shouldn't discuss news sources in general here, it's not the correct place for it. Mixmon (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

How's this different from all the posts in every other section above chanting Indian media shouldn't be used [as they're backed by the "state"]? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It isnt, both of them need to be discussed at RSN if the individuals want. Given the small number of editors at this page, and the relatively low quality of discussion, I doubt something like that will be resolved here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont see what new has been discussed here. What Kautilya3 observed about the sources above is long established. Maybe the new editors who find it uncertain should look into the RSN archives. >>> Extorc.talk 13:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Manhunt missing lots of information

It only mentions the car chase which took place on the first day when there were 2 car chases in the first 2 days.It also has no mention of his use of a cart motorcycle ,him initially hiding inside a gurudwara in a Jalandhar village ,assuming 7 different disguises and allegedly fleeing to Kurukshetraon on 23rd .Also doesn't mention his wife being charged and allegations being levelled by Indian officials.The reactions subsection has more information than the actual operation Smahwk (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Will add soon CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@Smahwk ".The reactions subsection has more information than the actual operation" I have already raised this issue in the past and the reception seems to be that we can trim it for now. I will look into that in the future. >>> Extorc.talk 13:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe limiting the reactions to 3 domestic and 3 international entities is fine relative to the size of the main Crackdown section. The larger the Crackdown section gets, more and more reactions might find Due weight which would be subject to future development. @CapnJackSp >>> Extorc.talk 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I removed a couple of "reactions" that were obviously undue, though I agree it should be trimmed more. For now 3 each sounds about fine. Dont take it as a hard rule, just a sort of guideline since we usually decide on weight in RS and not fixed numbers. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I said 3 specifically for the current situation. >>> Extorc.talk 13:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to trim down yourself if you wish, or else I can look into it in a while. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Baptism

By the end of December he had baptised more than 3000 youths, primarily to support Khalistan.

How exactly did News18 figure out that the baptism was meant for "Khalistan"? Where is the evidence? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

An Economic Times article is quoting an intelligence official "In the name of organising Amritpan ceremonies to baptise Sikh youth, Amritpal is trying to create an army of disenchanted youth who are ready to take on the state," [24] Mixmon (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

A BQ Prime article reported the same [25] Mixmon (talk) 15:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Both of these attribute the statement to "officials", not as a statement of fact. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes the statement needs to be rephrased. Mixmon (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Singh vs. Amritpal

I suggest using "Amritpal" as the short form name instead of "Singh". Every Sikh is called "Singh". While it might work for international media, it doesn't work in the Indian context. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, most of the RS use Amritpal for the subsequent usage — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree, using amritpal as nick is better than using singh. There are so many rajputs who are not sikh but still use singh as their last name.

Example: Dogra raja's. JustPureFacts (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The history of this page

This page was created on 9 November 2022, barely a month after Amritpal Singh was anointed as the head of WPD. By a sock called Sardarmann. Within a week a bunch of IP's came and added some heavy-duty tags. Then this happened. This editor, now blocked, added some 7,000 bytes of text with formatted citations using a mobile web edit. It took him/her only 40 minutes to do it. The WP:CRYSTAL bits in this version are interesting too. A few days later, we also got an advance announcement that a Khalsa Vaheer was starting! And we were also witness to a failed rebranding exercise. Pity that the user got blocked, or we would have continued to get real-time updates!

Sometime later, an IP came and deleted the obvious non-WP:RS. But the content sourced to them was retained, and still sits on the page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"Pity that the user got blocked, or we would have continued to get real-time updates!" Not exactly, many are still willing to do similar kind of edits. Mixmon (talk) 16:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting analysis!! There's a lot of work to be done on this page. Hope we all get time to do that. Indeed pity.. WP almost competed with Twitter wrt real-time updates 😅 — DaxServer (t · m · c) 18:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

"radical" Impartiality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The opening describes him as "radical", but doesn't cite good sources, i.e., no major impartial newspaper or other high quality sources. I think it should be changed to "He has been described as radical by some observers" or something like that. I mean, is there a consensus that he "is" in fact radical, and do we have sufficient sources to make that claim so directly and openly? I would prefer to say that some media refer to him as radical. Chaptagai (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

There is already section above on the issue. Please read through that. And, if you still have an issue, write your comment there. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Pro-Khalistan Bias Risk

Some Khalistan organizations appear to be promoting biased editing.[26] As a Sikh I am concerned this could lead to improper associations of Sikhism with the far-right separatist movement and I hope editors remain mindful that there is a concerted effort to change the information here for optics. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 05:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

This person calling for vandalism of wikipedia is a co-founder of "Baaz News". Mixmon (talk) 07:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. This page is relatively safe from disruption as it is protected. I couldn't say about other related articles. Please keep an eye out — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nothing will happen, this article is blue locked. Solblaze (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is a readable link. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

And here is to brainwashing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I expect disruption tomorrow, ECP expires in a few hours. Had requested extention of ECP but was declined as being "preemptive". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If not ECP, SP is absolutely necessary as without it, we will see a full brigade of vandalism and a whole bunch of "revert to last good version". >>> Extorc.talk 19:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't seem to have access to this either. >>> Extorc.talk 19:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Jaskaran Sandhu

@JaskaranSandhu_

CALL TO ACTION: The @Wikipedia page for Amritpal Singh is incredibly poor & a disservice to anyone trying to actually quickly learn who he is. Anti-Sikh disinfo, misinfo, propaganda, & psyops galore

We need Sikhs to get involved with editing.

I am no expert in Wikipedia editing, which is a subculture in of itself. But for those with a history of editing and curation, please get involved. Happy to coordinate however I can.

Wikipedia is often the first place anyone looks when exploring a topic they know little about. And right now the Amritpal Singh page is one-sided pro-govt mess. Straight dishonest and insincere garbage, objectively speaking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritpal_Singh_(activist)

March 25, 2023

Mixmon (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

In the lead, change He is accused of maintaining close contacts with the Inter-Services Intelligence and attempting to raise a militia including suicide bombers as per intelligence reports.[28]

to "Indian intelligence reports accuse him of maintaining contact with the Inter Service Intelligence and attempting to raise a militia including suicide bombers" Solblaze (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

TEJAS MK2 (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC) minor grammar edits and some new information and some new abbreviations

 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. Cannolis (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Akal Takht jathedar

This paragraph got inserted today, separate from the first paragraph that starts with Akal Takht jathedar:

On March 27th the Akal Takht held a gathering with over 50 Sikh organisations. After they gave an ultimatum to the Punjab Government which was to release all Sikhs arrested in the past 10 days within 24 hours. The Akal Takht further announced it would launch its own Vaheer if the demand is not met. The Akal Takht also announced it would give financial assistance to the families of those who have been charged under the NSA act.

References

Apart from the fact that there is not a single mention of Amritpal Singh on the subject's biograpy page, a "24 hour ultimatum" is obviously a news item, not encyclopaedic content. A judicious editor would wait those 24 hours to see what happens. Secondly, who is the Akal Takht jathedar speaking for? What are his qualifications for inserting himself into this affair? Who made him a judge of "innocence" or guilt? Why is a "Vaheer (religious procession)" supposed to be a threat?

By the way, the jathedar also urged Amritpal to surrender to the authorities, a factoid much more central to this page, which our NPOV editors chose to suppress from their readers. Such are the ways of Wikipedia! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Arrests

Somebody cited this Outlook article to claim that 353 people have been "arrested", but omitted the secondary fact that 197 of them were released.

The sentence on the main page says that, on 18 March, 78 people were "arrested" while several others were "detained" for questioning. The "detained" people may be released or go into full arrest, but it is quite unlikely that arrested people are released.

This particular source is quite unclear. It starts with "preventive custody" and then uses "arrest" later on. Obviously, these are not "arrests" in the legal sense. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)