Jump to content

Talk:Amritpal Singh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CalicoMo (talk | contribs) at 18:47, 21 March 2023 (→Very clear pro-Indian government narrative bias in this article: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Amritpal is not a khalistani

Bhai Amritpal Singh is a activists who is on a mission to free Punjab from drugs and give Punjab there rights. Amanpreet2004 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In his speeches, Singh often argues that the demand for Khalistan is absolutely justified. He also seems to hold considerable appeal for his followers.[1]

In another statement, he is quoted as saying, “We lost our (Sikh) empire to the British in 1849 and we are asking for that empire back.”[2]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“Sikhs have been slaves for 150 years. We have developed a slave mentality. First, we were slaves to the British, now we are slaves to the Hindus. The only way we can be totally free is when we have Sikh rule,” he said in Punjabi while addressing a gathering in Behbal Kalan village on the seventh anniversary of the Behbal Kalan ‘killings’ earlier this month.[3]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I agree that the "Khalistani" label has been overblown in the recent round. Until recently, the media has been calling him a "Khalistan sympathiser". Now that the police are chasing him, it has been blown up.
The main concern is really his tendency to armed militancy, stockpiling arms, and roaming around with armed supporters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Punjab has highest gun possession but lowest gun crime rate in India. Government just fool people by saying not to possess arms so that they can justify their crime to the people. Most of the gun crime happen with unlicensed weapons, and their people only acquire licensed weapons. Independent hawk (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Zoya Mateen, Arvind Chhabra, Amritpal Singh: The self-styled preacher raising fears in India's Punjab, BBC News, 28 February 2023.
  2. ^ Vivek Gupta, What Explains Amritpal Singh’s Mystifying Rise as the New Poster Boy of Radical Sikh Politics?, The Wire, 11 Februay 2023.
  3. ^ Matharu, Sonal (25 October 2022). "Fiery orator, 'Bhindranwale 2.0' — who's Amritpal Singh, new 'head' of Deep Sidhu's Waris Punjab De". The Print.

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Requested move 19 March 2023

– 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Not even one percent support him. Your claims are without source/baseless. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your statement also lacks any sources aswell Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
In which case you side with caution and not label him a Radical 31.125.46.248 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The source you added is not even vaguely reliable. All other sources demonstrate that a mob attacked Indian embassies across countries.[1]
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?
  1. ^ Free press journal

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

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks, did not notice you have raised an Rfc. >>> Extorc.talk 11:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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[who?][clarification needed] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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) [reply]
Yeah that't why he escaped using drug dealer's SUV [1][2]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
@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)[reply]
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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Mixmon Just calling a spade a spade when I see it. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amritpal_Singh&oldid=1145919535"