| Revision as of 20:29, 7 January 2019 editHarmanprtjhj (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users554 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit← Previous edit |
Revision as of 20:48, 7 January 2019 edit undoRenamed user U1krw4txwPvuEp3lqV382vOcqa7 (talk | contribs)68,802 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2018: reNext edit → |
| Line 35: |
Line 35: |
|
“The Commission finds the reply of PIO to be in order. Law and order being a state subject, the information regarding cases registered against Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale must be held by Govt. of Punjab.” No mention from the Indian government of him being declared a terrorist by the central government. The state government cannot declare someone a terrorist. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
“The Commission finds the reply of PIO to be in order. Law and order being a state subject, the information regarding cases registered against Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale must be held by Govt. of Punjab.” No mention from the Indian government of him being declared a terrorist by the central government. The state government cannot declare someone a terrorist. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
The sources and distorted info which you have used are no good. At first I decided to add some neutrality but now I am recognising that this version by you is the problem that it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article. ] (]) 20:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
The sources and distorted info which you have used are no good. At first I decided to add some neutrality but now I am recognising that this version by you is the problem that it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article. ] (]) 20:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::] please ] and ]. Notice the template {{tl|Controversial}} that is added on the top of this page. kindly follow the advice. regarding the content, if the RTI link you listed above had actually claimed then we could have used it. Since the RTI does not specifically mention the claim that you want to add then that source is not good enough. For controversial articles such as this, we should rely on neutral third party sources so as to steer clear of the bias that is associated with using content from a source that is not neutral. So I would request you to kindly only use neutral third party sources. You are welcome to review the sources, currently in the article and decide for yourself. also please follow ] while replying on talk pages. regards. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 20:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC) |
Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is not considered a criminal or a terrorist according to the Indian government making it a political murder. An RTI filed by Naveen Gupta regarding this issue brought out the information regarding his status as a common citizen that is falsely touted as a terrorist (https://indiankanoon.org/doc/64663435/). Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale declared Dharam Yudh(Righteous) Morcha(War) against the government to put forth Anandpur Sahib Resolution that briefly asked for the rights of Punjab and Sikhs such as increasing the number of Sikhs in the Indian Army in resolution number 2 (section D) etc.
The website is a source that can be used a secondary source. The RTI indirectly states that Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale is not recorded as a terroristHarmanprtjhj (talk)
The government of India has not record of him as a terrorist. He might be in the state government but that is an assumption.
“The Commission finds the reply of PIO to be in order. Law and order being a state subject, the information regarding cases registered against Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale must be held by Govt. of Punjab.” No mention from the Indian government of him being declared a terrorist by the central government. The state government cannot declare someone a terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmanprtjhj (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
The sources and distorted info which you have used are no good. At first I decided to add some neutrality but now I am recognising that this version by you is the problem that it needs no rebuttal but large chunk of removal to restore sanity of the article. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The RTI you linked above says, that the question should be referred to Government of Punjab. in any case, the content in the article is cited to reliable third party sources, please check the referenes. DBigXrayᗙ 09:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)