Talk:Gurpatwant Singh Pannun

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023[edit]

GURPATWANT SINGH PANNU IS A SEPRATIST, VULGAR MAN, HAS LINKS WITH KHALISTANI AND ISLAMIC TERRORISTS HE HAS ONLY ONE MOTIVE THAT TO CREATE TENSIONS IN A HAPPILY LIVING COUNTRY INDIA. HE IS JEALOUS OF INDIA AND INDIAN SIKHS PROGRESS. 146.196.32.31 (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023 (2)[edit]

Recent edit is wrong information by qww. You can easily verify tjis information. 24.79.64.181 (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Xan747 (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2023[edit]

He is alive, not dead. Please remove the media reports that he has "died" Also remove the fact that he is terrorist. We at wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in topics. I too admit he terrible boy but no lie pls Garunta (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done: See section below about how reports of his death are insufficiently sourced, contradictory, or otherwise fail WP:BLP. As for the "terrorist" label, I'd have to look more into the sourcing and attribution of that before commenting. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at where and how "terrorist" is used in the article, it's absolutely appropriate. It's hard to deny that he was labeled a terrorist by the government of India. —C.Fred (talk) 03:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is he dead or alive?[edit]

The following articles are both from The Free Press Journal:

Two other citations used to support that he is dead are based solely on social media posts and are NOT confirmed: [1] and [2] Until we get confirmation from more than an anonymous "high-level source", we should not be reporting that he is dead. Xan747 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan747 Good catch. I agree that per WP:BLP, we will need multiple reliable sources to report on his death—and ideally to identify their sources—before we add it to the article. —C.Fred (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred, at most we should say there are rumours of his death. I nixed that earlier today, but if it gains more traction it might be notable enough to mention. And perhaps other editors will pause before writing he's dead in wikivoice. Way past my bedtime now, though. Xan747 (talk) 03:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Pannun isn’t dead. He is back to doing his usual. [4] His death was rumours and Indian news picked it up because of course they would. [5] CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is alive despite Indian government trying to assassinate him. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/29/india-assassination-raw-sikhs-modi/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3d8ce65%2F662fcaf27f4e8a2cca38251c%2F600db0ff9bbc0f746520a957%2F8%2F51%2F662fcaf27f4e8a2cca38251c Vsubedi (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom[edit]

916 796 5285 2601:204:CD02:AC20:69D2:8987:625F:E273 (talk) 08:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

@ChaitanyaJo Per WP:BLPCRIME


“A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent untill 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.”


@Suthasianhistorian8 can you chime in? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 13:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CanadianSingh1469 - Strangely, the IP 92.32.250.245 seems to be a single purpose IP, who has only edited this article so-far. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "Threatened"[edit]

The two initial sources subsequently added by @Suthasianhistorian8 both suffer from WP:BIASED as they are both Hindi-Centric, who are in opposition to the Khalistan movement, which Mr Pannun is a part of.

The first unbiased source used from the National Post did not name a "threat". As the National post is objectivly the least biased source in this instance, it should be weighted over any of the other biased sources, and "threatened" should be removed from "In September 2023, Pannun threatened Indo-Canadian Hindus and advised them to leave Canada" Varials (talk) 09:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling the "advising" of a religious community to go back to their country of origin and accusing them of being disloyal to their nation a threat is not biased at all, it's calling a spade a spade - just as someone telling an African-American or African-Canadian or Jewish person to go back to Africa or Israel and accusing them of being disloyal to their nation can reasonably construed as a threat, or at the very least unacceptable hostility. I don't think the article is taking any creative liberties with that addition. And what makes you think the Hindustan Times is "biased"? Because it's Indian origin? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed change to merely state that he "advised" Hindus to leave Canada is egregiously euphemistic. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Threat, as defined by the webster dictionary is "an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage"
There is absolutely no expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage made in the video cited by your sources. You can argue Religious discrimination, but you cannot argue a threat.
someone telling an African-American or African-Canadian or Jewish person to go back to Africa or Israel is not a "threat" it may be a racist or discriminatory statement but again there is no objective threat of evil, injury, or damage to the person on the receiving end of the statement.
There must be a threat of something occurring if a demand is not made, simply asking a group of people to leave is not a threat. Varials (talk) 09:19, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I and many others would agree to disagree, but regardless, we go by what sources say, not what we as editors think or feel. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Unbiased sources you citied did not have a mention of any "threat". So applying your argument it should be removed. Varials (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindustan Times is extensively used throughout Wikipedia, it's a fairly reliable source. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Hindustan times is Headquarted out of New Delhi, India.
India ranks 161 out of 180 on the world press freedom index
Any source coming out of India must be carefully reviewed as it is likely comes from a source in which the Government of India contains some editorial control.
Therefor, using sources from Indian media on a topic the Indian government is actively and aggressively attacking is ignorant if not malicious.
Anyone would agree that 3rd party, independent sources should be used. When you cited one, it contained no mention of a "threat" Varials (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying comment: We can't make sweeping generalizations that every single Indian news outlet is biased, those that are overtly so such as Swarajya or OpIndia have been deprecated by Wikipedia and can be removed on sight. But there are more neutral outlets, India Today, a prominent news organization, published numerous articles sympathetic to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the official Public Safety Canada Twitter handle called the video hateful and offensive and suggested it was an act of aggression and intimidation. [6]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Go back to country X" is classic xenophobic* hate speech, but does not constitute a threat. (*: It is usually spoken by a non-immigrant as a xenophobic slogan, making this use different. Regardless, it is considered hate speech on the grounds of being exclusive all the same.) suggested the original quote was "acts of aggression, hate, intimidation or incitement of fear have no place...". This specific instance is "hate".Artoria2e5 🌉 13:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to look at the context of what his organization has been doing, they have been issuing posters with vieled assassination requests against Indian diplomats with the wording just vauge enough to give them plausible deniability, calling for the doxxing of these diplomats which is a violation of the Vienna conventions, almost all of them say "Kill India". They further held a separatist rally at the memorial site for the Air India bombing victims and placed posters throughout Canada accusing Hindus of murdering infants. Their supporters also likely vandalized various Hindu temples and set the Indian consulate in San Fransisco on fire in July of this year. With all this taken into consideration, calling Pannun's remarks a threat seems fair. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
who is changing the words threatened with warning and/or advising? are you guys kidding me? is canada pannu's private property? a warning is generally issued with the intention of protecting or informing the recipient. asking an entire community to leave canada or face consequences in a aggressive tone as well as accusing them of being a traitor is not warning or advising.its a blatant threat. and all RS mentions threat.its not even an npov issue. who is whitewashing this guy? someone monitor these people and keep note of them.danger to society Cosmotech92 (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please educate yourself as to the English language
Threaten is defined as to utter threats against
Threat is defined as an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage.
Those criteria are NOT met. Therefore, he is not threatening them.
The only reason I gave up editing this is because people are more interested in pushing their narrative than using correct English. Varials (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2023[edit]

"Pannun has claimed responsibility for various terror incidents in India." → should minimally add [citation needed] and perhaps consider removal. Which terror incidents? Where is the source for each of them?

Reference 10 (which is for: https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/separatist-gurpatwant-pannun-in-hiding-as-3-khalistani-terrorists-die-in-45-days-2395895-2023-06-21 ) states: "Pannun, who usually takes credit for terror attacks in India..." but does not give any additional details or references.

India Times is not an ideal source here, since it is known to produce biased articles with mixed levels of factual reporting, see https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/india-times-bias-rating/

More sources should be added, and the [citation needed] tag should be applied liberally to reflect this -- or this paragraph could be removed until more reliable sources can be found. 131.243.159.18 (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable and independent sources furthermore seem to contradict this statement:
"Pannun said he rejects the Indian government’s decision to label him a terrorist." (which of course would not be possible if one "claims responsibility for terror incidents"): https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2023/11/30/india-us-sikh-canada-assassination-separatist-leader/26082b9c-8fd0-11ee-95e1-edd75d825df0_story.html
"Most recently, India's anti-terror agency filed a case against him on charges related to terrorism and conspiracy... Pannun, who says he has U.S. and Canadian citizenship, told Reuters his message was to boycott the airline, 'not bomb' it." (again Pannun is pursuing an anti-terrorist image): https://www.reuters.com/world/who-is-gurpatwant-pannun-target-foiled-murder-plot-us-2023-11-23/ 131.243.154.3 (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pannun's statements on the Air India threats have already been included. Even the RCMP announced an investigation into the threats and it was widely covered by Canadian media. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pannun above states that his social media was only portrayed as a threat by non-factual media outlets, which are being cited here. There is certainly no claim of responsibility for any terrorism, nor did any "terrorist incident" actually even occur. And in any case, the lack of plurality already defeats "various."
The only reason to push back against adding reliable citations for this statement is that no such citations exist, pointing towards the claim being factually untrue. This train of thought is supported by the reliable references posted above, which were completely ignored in the response. Burner2468 (talk) 06:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to argue that Pannun portrays himself as anti terrorist which is not true at all, in fact it's laughable- he offered a $100,000 award for a citizen arrest of Sanjay Verma, which is a violation of the Vienna conventions, put up posters calling for the doxing of Indian diplomats which again is a violation of the Vienna conventions, warned a religious community to leave Canada becaue they repudiated their allegiance to their nation, and make an obvious threat to an airline which was targeted by Sikh fundamentalists in the past (and obviously backtracked once he started recieving heat from it). Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SAH8, I can tell from your reply that you are very passionate about this subject and that you have a very strong opinion yourself. I appreciate that, but on Wikipedia such statements must be backed up by verifiable references according to an agreed standard, which is certainly not done in this section of the article, nor in your reply. Note that the verifiability guidelines for BLPs apply not only to the article itself but also to comments in these talk pages (see here).
Nothing you mentioned is cited in the article, and even if it were (assuming that these claims are available from verifiable sources?), it's still rather questionable whether any of this would qualify for "claiming responsibility for various terror incidents." A sentence like "Pannun has made politically charged and highly controversial statements" seems to align better with the claims that you've made, assuming that they are in fact citable(?).
It would undoubtedly be better to enumerate such specific claims here -- if what you say is actually true, it should be listed in the article as facts, as the current text undoubtedly lacks sufficient detail and evidence, per the guidelines of Writing style: Tone.
You should also consider People accused of crime and Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, as Pannun has never been convicted of terrorism, and he also claims a governmental conspiracy to silence him. Burner2468 (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The source is India Today which is a fairly credible source. Given Pannun's past imbroligos, including a clear cut threat to attack an airport, which was widely reported by even the Canadian media, this is not an exceptional claim. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me if the well-accepted bias & mixed factuality of India Today was missed, or rather ignored, in this response. Including a reference to Canadian media could be a good option, but at the moment there is nothing -- so why not add it? :) 131.243.154.3 (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage from Canadian media is not a requirement to include something in Wikipedia nor is Canadian media infalliable- there has been a lot of skewed and blatant pro government reporting from them as well. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if someone has "claimed responsibility for various terror incidents in India," there should certainly be more than one reference for that. Since there are "various" incidents, by definition, there must be one claim of responsibility for each one. So if the statement is true, those must exist somewhere; or at least one. But at the moment, these "various incidents" are reported by an agreeably biased, partially-nonfactual news source, and I have not been able to find any other sources to verify this (in Canada or otherwise), despite my best efforts.
Without a doubt, this situation DOES fall under the guidelines of reliable sourcing on Wikipedia:
"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources 131.243.154.3 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. @Suthasianhistorian8, Burner2468, IP editor, seeing as this seems to be a dispute over the reliability of indiatoday, it would be best to take this to the reliable sources noticeboard. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notable work review[edit]

How is posting videos and posters calling for damaging India, "INDIANS" and their diplomats, a notable work? 142.117.116.240 (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article about him not mention Indian government's attempt to assassinate him in the US? https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/29/india-assassination-raw-sikhs-modi/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3d8ce65%2F662fcaf27f4e8a2cca38251c%2F600db0ff9bbc0f746520a957%2F8%2F51%2F662fcaf27f4e8a2cca38251c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsubedi (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 April 2024[edit]

Indian intelligence agencies have tried to assassinate Pannun in the US. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/29/india-assassination-raw-sikhs-modi/?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F3d8ce65%2F662fcaf27f4e8a2cca38251c%2F600db0ff9bbc0f746520a957%2F8%2F51%2F662fcaf27f4e8a2cca38251c Vsubedi (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. Charliehdb (talk) 10:28, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gurpatwant_Singh_Pannun&oldid=1222172883"