Talk:Amritpal Singh/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

MOS:LABEL

Now that someone has already unsuccessfully tried to make the point that use of the word Radical in the lead is contentious, allow me to point out that MOS:LABEL points out that Value-laden labels...terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.

Several sources used in this article refer to Amritpal as radical, self-styled Khalistani. Some even calling him the reappearance of a slain militant.

• 'Bhindranwale 2.0': Radical Khalistan Sympathiser Amritpal Singh
• Radical activist Amritpal Singh Sandhu stormed the Ajnala police station
• Amritpal Singh, a radical preacher
• New poster boy of Sikh radical politics in Punjab
• Radical preacher and Khalistan sympathiser
• Punjab government gave in to radical leader Amritpal Singh

Above are usage by reliable sources.
Kindly treat this section as a redirect to all the upcoming attempts to challenge the usage of the word Radical in the lead.
It is not contentious according to MOS.@Kautilya3, @Utcursch >>> Extorc.talk 07:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Extorc, you missed the part that immediately follows what you bolded: use in-text attribution. If radical is indeed a value-laden term, it is not right to use it in the lede without saying who called him radical right after it. I'm not personally sure that radical is value laden, but since many including the previous IP and you agree it is, then it is best to remove it altogether. 117.194.204.34 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

If you wish, we can overload citations right after the word radical, I dont see any issue with that. AS I said, there are enough sources and we have established clearly that he IS a radical. >>> Extorc.talk 04:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Extorc, "in-text" means that the attribution should be part of the main sentence, the same way the word "radical" is. See WP:INTEXT. No amount of overloading citations or attributing in footnotes can fulfill the requirement. It's irrelevant whether he "clearly is" a radical, if the term value laden, it needs to be attributed in-text.

Wikipedia does have a habit of ignoring this guideline by labelling people they don't like (mostly right-wing people) with various labels they conjour up, writing on them with the intent to discredit them rather than fairly summarising who they are. So maybe you can get away with this too. Whatever. 117.194.204.34 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Extorc, You'll have to say "IndiaTV (or whatever)" has labelled Singh as "radical". You can't call him "radical" in the lead using the voice of Wikipedia. Solblaze (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The allegations of Amritpal as a Khalistani, separatist and militant are in violation of MOS:LABEL. Allegation and accusations of someone being a militant, Khalistani are value-laden labels and must to be avoided to have NPOV. It is best to describe, Amritpal as the leader of Waris Punjab De who has been accused of being a Khalistani separatist. Princhest01 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you understand that to apply NPOV you'll have to produce reliable sources? If all reliable sources are calling him khalistani there is nothing which can be done. Mixmon (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not true. The clear POV is in choosing one-sided Op-Eds and references ignoring the rest. Numerous have reported him as activist or preacher and steering away from state propaganda of calling him a "militant" to justify false arrests. Here are few examples that need to considered:

1. On Vice is described as "Activist"

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ak3z4e/amritpal-singh-india-khalistan-sikh-punjab

2. NPR he is described as "Preacher"

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/23/1165698813/a-look-at-amritpal-singh-the-sikh-preacher-on-the-run-who-has-captivated-india

Based on the references, he can be called head of Waris Punjab De and a separatist preacher, but calling him a militant is unsubstantiated- both legally and encyclopedically. Princhest01 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

'Legally'? This is wikipedia, we dont really care. As for wikipedia standards, it is clearly justified by a large amount of RS supporting it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Also see this Mixmon (talk) 10:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Which one amongst the RS say that Amritpal Singh is "militant?" What is the name of his militia? Princhest01 (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is he called "militant" in the WP page? Mixmon (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The reference link calling him close to militant or alleged to be having a militia on WP is stating that

"He also raised a private militia called Anandpur Khalsa Fauj from among his followers, who carried firearms and wore bullet-proof vests."

Reference given: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ahead-of-crackdown-the-worry-for-centre-amritpals-campaign-his-private-army-8507040/

Not only this allegation hasn’t been confirmed by multiple sources as required, but the above statement violates the NPOV in claiming it as a fact and when the references itself is reporting the claim of having “private militia” as an allegation. Either this statement should be removed, as it is not supported by multiple sources or changed in accordance with NPOV to correctly identify it as an allegation as per WP:Biogrpahies of Living Persons, public figures accused of crime. Princhest01 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added a more recent source Mixmon (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Your source clearly says that the "private militia" claim is an allegation, and not a fact. WP: Biographies of Living Persons state that all accusation against public figure accused of crime need to written as "alleged" and the his/her denial needs to be published alongside. Princhest01 (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2023

I think it's time to add an NPOV dispute tag to the page. Solblaze (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Don't think there's any reason to do it. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This talk page is almost entirely filled with walls of text objecting to the article's POV. There's clearly a dispute among editors. Solblaze (talk) 07:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Dispute among editors alone does not make a case for NPOV. Till the language is neutral and well referenced, it's fine. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction - in your opinion, the language is neutral. Others clearly think otherwise. Solblaze (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

As I said, dispute among editors doesn't make a point to unilaterally edit anything. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 10:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The POV tag is usually added when a single editor feels it is needed and a single talk page sub section is dedicated to the topic. Here, multiple editors have objected to the content of this page presenting the Indian government POV as fact, and this has taken up almost the entire talk page, let alone a single sub section. See WP:NPOV. Solblaze (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, a lot of content has already been added by dissenting editors to balance the POV in their view. Hence NPOV cannot be disputed now. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 It very much can be. The documentation of the template (which they refer to) is what's important, not your personal opinion on the correct usage of the template. Clearly, there is signficant and apparently good-faith concern about NPOV, so the tag should be added. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you .. Dilpreet Singh ping 02:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderForTruth2023 @Solblaze Referring again to the template documentation, it should only be removed wwhen there is consensus that the article does not violate NPOV. As long as there is ongoing discussion, it should stay. If the issue cannot be resolved, I would recommend WP:RfC, ideally from a trustworthy expert on the topic. Actualcpscm (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The issues raised by other editors have been addressed in multiple sections of this talk page. Is there anything remaining? Mixmon (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mixmon I did not read the entire talk page, as in this case, I assumed good faith when @Solblaze argued that there is ongoing dispute. If the dispute has stopped, or the editors raising concerns are doing so without contributing relevant and new argumentation, then the template can of course be removed. Have you been following this discussion here? I don't really have a good overview of the history of this debate. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the dissenting editors have raised the issue of the reliability of the sources used in this page and almost every section of this page has addressed this issue in some way. They have requested to include articles with a "pro-Amritpal" point of view but have not yet provided a single WP:RS for that.

Rest are just some silly arguments which are repeated over and over again on this talk page.

1. The editors on that page are government-affiliated "state lobby".
2. The editors are only pushing state-sponsored sources while ignoring sources which gives a "pro-Amritpal" perspective.
3. Wikipedia is "biased against Sikhs" as they "don't have many accounts that meet the requirement for the semi-protected".
4. Editors are not aware of the ground reality so they are defaming "drug healer" "bhai" Amritpal Singh.
5. Protection on the page is Wikipedia's "conspiracy against Sikhs" to keep them away for the reasons mentioned in point #3.

The solution to this "dispute" is simple. They'll have to provide reliable sources with a "pro-Amritpal" POV. Mixmon (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, feel free to remove the template. I am trusting you that you're presenting this truthfully; the threshold for the inclusion of this template is quite low, so removal should reflect either consensus or a complete and utter lack of meaningful dispute. Actualcpscm (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

NPOV Noticeboard is the place perfect for the further discussion of this issue. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Actualcpscm The Herald I 'll review and input on this article, my ID was blocked and I still have to catch up with the changes. Dilpreet Singh ping 02:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with this, most of the people who raise the voice were blocked or other were insulted or argued to stay away from the discussion. Dilpreet Singh ping 02:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You were not blocked for "raising your voice", this statement is only validating point #5 (conspiracy to keep dissenters away). Mixmon (talk) 08:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you feel that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are insulting to you personally, that is your problem. If you hold beliefs that fundamentally conflict with the policies and guidelines on NPOV, that is also your problem. It is not the encyclopedia's responsibility to conform to your individual preferences; it is your responsibility to ensure you edit and discuss in the ways that adhere to the rules of the platform. If you cannot handle that responsibility, take it up with the cabal dedicated to sabotaging you personally.

The only reason I'm even discussing this matter on a talk page is because it is strictly relevant to the NPOV template in the article. As long as the only NPOV-related concern is vague and conspiratorial, without any substance to speak of, it does not need to be mentioned. So far, every time the people you say are being censored raised their concerns, their claims lacked reliable sources or were otherwise inappropriate. Being held to the universal standard of editing on Wikipedia is not censorship. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ISI in lead

I still think it's undue to be in [the current state of] lead. I intend to remove it. Any objections? Also, the citations added are iterating the same that the Intelligence reports are suggesting ISI links. They don't add any more information and are simply redundant. I would also remove most of them WP:CITEKILL as we're only stating that exactly and not the he has links. One good source is enough, it's a news report and not an analysis — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it does merit mention in the lead, though I dont have any issues with removing the multiple citations (or atleast moving them into the body of the article where this was discussed). I think the overcite was done when editors were claiming every other site to not be RS, and having a bunch of diverse citations was a way to override that.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I also think the alleged ISI links needs to be in the lead. Without it the Indian governrment's gung-ho manhunt wouldn't make sense. Also the Bhindranwale styling needs to go there. I am comfortable with ISI links and raising militia, but not suicide bombers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Intelligence agencies said before coming to India, Amritpal was trained by the ISI in Georgia and has links with the Sikhs for Justice. During the training, he was shown speeches of Khalistan ideologue Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale. He was trained to follow his mannerism to attract attention of the masses.

The fact that the ISI has been supporting Khalistan groups is well-established. It can be taken for granted that the myriads of global Khalistani groups are linked to ISI one way or another. So there is nothing controversial here in my opinion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, It should be removed. I'll provide more details about the sources Kautilya3 shared here. Dilpreet Singh ping 02:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Kautilya, the citations definitely don't add anything. I'll edit them later — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean the citations to that statement in the article, not the ones provided by Kautilya above — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion it should remain in the lead (I don't oppose any rephrasing). I agree with @Kautilya3 that without the alleged ISI links (or similar claims) the intense crackdown by Indian agencies (on just a potential threat) won't make sense. Mixmon (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2023 (2)

Amritpal Singh is NOT a radical, simply an advocate for Sikh and fundamental human rights in India. The cited sources are derived from proven biased government-ran media, please refrain from leveraging these sources and point to at least some Sikh-related sources in order to configure a balanced point of view. This is the work of Godi media and has been condemned by international organizations such as Amnesty International, Twitter, United Nations, etc. 207.151.52.231 (talk) 21:49, 29 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) 22:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

BLP

I have no sympathy for the subject but this is a BLP. Indian police has a longstanding habit of putting salacious gossip in the media — most of which is ultimately rejected by the judiciary, a decade or two later — and they do not belong to this page. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been expessing reservations about the "suicide bomber" allegation, which is too speculative. Your rewording makes it even worse. I am going to remove it. Nobody said that AKF "includes" suicide bombers. Anyway, this is a good time for me to remove it.

I am reinstating the "radical" label. It has been discussed extensively in the talk page archives. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't spot the removal of radical. Editing in mobile-VE is close to impossible.

A couple of sources do say that AKF includes suicide bombers but I agree on keeping this out of the lead. In any case, this thread was meant for the body. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Copy edit

Did a copyedit. I am mostly away from the project these days; so, do ping me if you have objections. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Section about media biased reporting and fake news.

There should be section or some lines about biased reporting and fake news being spread by Indian media like amritpal singh putting 3 conditions for surrender which was later found to be fake news. Others please suggest. Jasksingh (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jasksingh This is a WP:BLP article. The WP:BURDEN of providing sources to include the suggested content is on you — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

We are not covering anything about "surrender". We are not interested in "media". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@Jasksingh: Yes, I agree with you that there are some discrepancies with the media coverage in this issue, but as pointed out, the burden of providing WP:RS far outweighs them. There is no doubt that the publicly available information is not the actual facts and media is not reporting the exact facts. So if you can provide the sources, feel free to add them in the reactions subheading. But since this is a WP:BLP, it will be removed unless you can verify the cites. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not an issue of BLP, but rather of WP:NOTNEWS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

PFB the sources for the same. Last one is the official twitter channel of Punjab Police:

http://www.uniindia.com/news-of-amritpal-putting-3-conditions-for-surrender-fake-police/north/news/2943578.html

https://en.youturn.in/factcheck/did-amritpal-singh-issue-3-conditions-to-surrender.html

https://twitter.com/PunjabPoliceInd/status/1641387201043869697

Jasksingh (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Amritpal Singh is not the 2nd Jathedar of Waris Punjab De

Amritpal Singh backdated formation of 'Warris Panj-Aab De', sounding similar to Deep Sidhu's outfit, to encash on his popularity. https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/amritpal-singh-backdated-formation-of-warris-panj-aab-de-sounding-similar-to-deep-sidhus-outfit-to-encash-on-his-popularity/articleshow/99012684.cms

Before death, Deep Sidhu had blocked Amritpal Singh's phone number. The family of Deep Sidhu had refused to acknowledge fugitive pro-Khalistani leader Amritpal Singh as the heir to 'Waris Punjab De'. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/deep-sidhu-blocked-amritpal-singh-phone-number-opposed-ideology-10-points-101679833438110-amp.html?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ht_AMP

Dreamz12 (talk) 11:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Amritpal Singh#Succession to Deep Sidhu section covers the controversial nature of the succession. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Ive added "controvertially", though I dont think any detail on the controversy itself merits mention in the lead. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Are there sources for calling him "2nd Jathedar"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

See template:Infobox officeholder#Usage. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You guys should make it less biased

The page feels hyper biased and it potrays Amritpal negatively without metioning any prespectives supporting Amritpal I think you should add a section about public perception of him  2604:3D09:27A:3500:A0A6:B21C:7E37:807B (talk) 06:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger

@Kautilya3, @CapnJackSp, @DaxServer. I've performed the merger from Amritpal Singh manhunt. Whether that content should be added or not can be evaluated based on WP:NOTNEWS. >>> Extorc.talk 15:18, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Khalistani flags and other things on allegation section

that flag they got from the phone was Sarkar e khalsa flag, map was also from Sikh empire, state flag were also old flags from sikh empire. They did not had any A.K.F written on Ak47 as they say in the section its a rifle and its licensed then why they are behind him for Arms act he did not kill anybody. So please kindly change info sombody who dont know him they are going to think he is a gangster. 2001:569:7DCF:5400:CC09:5ADE:2F5A:52FE (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide RS. As far as my understanding goes, semi/fully automatic rifles are prohibited in India, which makes your claim of the gun being "licensed" rather questionable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

They are not semi or fully auto if you see in his photos and i said they are licensed you know government give license if they were semi or fully auto how would they get a license 2001:569:7DCF:5400:C4CF:C5D6:CD42:EFE9 (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Uhhh... Bolt action AK? I doubt that. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Where did you see AK do you even know how AK look like brother 2001:569:7DCF:5400:52C:DA2A:7C1A:23CE (talk) 05:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You could check Wikipedia itself for AK variants, we do have an exhaustive list. Let me know if you find any that are bolt action. Though this is becoming a WP:FORUMy discussion at this point, with a WP:SNOW chance of the edit ever happening. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

That what i am saying that they did not have any AK47 all were bolt action rifles, then why in the allegatiand charges it says Ak47 now i am going to change it 2001:569:7DCF:5400:F84D:A297:BB81:3DC3 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)