Talk:Gurpatwant Singh Pannun

Recent edits

@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)

@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)

Use of the word "Threatened"

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)

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)

Your proposed change to merely state that he "advised" Hindus to leave Canada is egregiously euphemistic. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The Hindustan Times is extensively used throughout Wikipedia, it's a fairly reliable source. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Even the official Public Safety Canada Twitter handle called the video hateful and offensive and suggested it was an act of aggression and intimidation. [1]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

BLP/RS concerns

I was concerned by the amount of times content was cited to either yellow-listed sources such as Times of India/The Economic Times or sources such as The Hindustan Times (THT should not be used as source here as they have an obvious bias in the general Hindu vs. Sikh conflict). I am more concerned that most of this content could be potentially libelous. I have removed this content per the BLP policy which states that such content should be removed immediately. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  07:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I think that a wise choice. I wasn't sure how valid those sources were but I recently toned down some of the wording for BLP, too. It was even worse before. Lewisguile (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)