Talk:Surinder Singh Sodhi

New page creation 21 June 2022

@CanadianSingh1469: surely "Sikh" is not a sufficient dab, wouldn't the hockey player also be Sikh? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Militant would be better. As you know there is a discussion on just naming it Surinder Singh Sodhi. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 21 June 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that the militant is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Surinder Singh Sodhi (Sikh) → Surinder Singh Sodhi – Surinder Singh Sodhi is more specific and is better considering this Surinder Singh Sodhi is more notable than others CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 07:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC) This is a contested technical request (permalink). – MaterialWorks ping me! 14:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose no reason given, target is a redirect to Surinder Singh Sodhi (Field Hockey) but should probably be a dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This article was created today. I think it should go through the RM process; at the very least, evidence should be provided that this Surinder Singh Sodhi is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC over the field hockey player.

These disambiguators could be improved, though. I've uncapitalized the field hockey player's title, but I'm not sure what a better disambiguator for the one currently disambiguated (Sikh) would be [(militant) maybe?]. At the very least, it should be lowercased if a disambiguator is kept. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Well when you google Surinder Singh Sodhi the first thing that pops up is a biography of the militant [1] Second is another biography [2] Third is the Wikipedia page on the militant. If we go to books first one with preview is about a different Surinder Singh Sodhi [3] Second is about he militant [4] Third is also on the militant [5] CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I would probably still take this through RM on principle myself, but that'd be enough to convince me in a RM/TR request given I'm getting the same types of results. Unless In ictu oculi retracts his oppose, though, this will have to be taken to RM anyway (I believe at least, per the way this board runs). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

This has the potential for someone to object, not just that someone here has objected, as per WP:PCM, so it should go to a full WP:RM. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi@Skarmory Are you opposed to the move? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

No, at this point I'm actually in support (see below, I just chimed in). Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• books don't lift the (militant) out from the homonyms In ictu oculi (talk) 20:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  What do you mean? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Specifiying that he is "Sikh" is not a helpful suggestion and should not be included in the title Usingh0663 (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support: the google results definitely favor the Sikh militant, and despite being created 4 days ago, the Sikh militant also already has a decisive lead in pageviews over this past month. I think that's enough to support primary topic status between two targets. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for sharing your opinion. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Probably the primary topic. Both are/were Sikhs in any case, so the current disambiguator is no disambiguation at all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your opinion. @In ictu oculi Are you still hard on your stance of opposed? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assessment

I think this article should be assessed as a "A". Agree or disagree? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be assessed for B criteria first. Right now it's C. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

C? It meets all the criteria for B and A, so how is it a C. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd prefer the assessment to be done by an independent editor for it to be B and above. You can request for it here Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Requesting an assessment — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 06:40, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @CanadianSingh1469, I'm not a reviewer, but there are a few things I would recommend changing.

1. Per MOS:BLP, Sodhi and other people (ex. Bhindranwale) should be referred to by their surname following the first mention.
2. Merge some of the paragraphs in the Militancy section together. Ex. Railway and arrest; the various killings
3. Make sure your sources verify what you have written, and remove any unnecessary sources. Ex. Source 15 is cited multiple times, when it doesn't mention what is written, the section about the Jewelery Store Robbery is not support by its sources and sources 54 and 31 in Attack on DSP Gurbachan Singh also don't mention what precedes it, and seems unnecessary .
4. Some copyediting is needed for tone and grammar.

ARandomName123 (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the suggestions. ARandomName123

About point 3. Source 54 does mention what is cited. It goes into less detail about it compared to the second source. 31 also mentions and discusses what is cited. If you want I can provide quotes from those sources. Source 15 is cited twice. It is used in one part because it mentions Sodhi was arrested. The second time it mentions Sodhi was tortured so it is used. You seem to not have read the sources in the jewellery robbery section. The white paper source talks about the robbery and some details. The India Today source says Sodhi was involved. Please read the sources carefully. :) CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 Pinging CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the sources do mention what happened, but they do not mention what happens in the sentence that precedes it:

Sodhi, Makhan, and the other militant attacked Gurbachan and his security with stenguns. The attack turned into a full, around, 30 minute shootout with a constable and salesmen being killed. A head constable, Karnail Singh, would later die of his wounds. Gurbachan lived by taking covering and fainting death.

Source 54 only mentions that an attack has happened, not the length, or how he survived. As for source 31, I tried to ctrl+F "Gurbachan" and the results were for 1985 and 1993.

The second use already has 3 other sources, and source 15 does not specify who tortured him, so it seems unneccessary. The first use also already has 3 other sources, and is about a railway robbery and does not even mention an arrest.

As for the robbery, I apologize, I had not made the connection between the two. ARandomName123 (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@ARandomName123 For 31 don’t search for Gurbachan but search for the names of the officers killed in the shootout. For the shootout part the sources that come after are also being cited for it. So I will rearrange the sources to be properly in that part. I understand your point that the sources at some places are unnecessary. Thanks for the reply :) CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah ok, found it. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Assessment - B-Class article

B-class review

1. It is suitably referenced, with in-line citation:

2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious holes:

3. It has a defined structure:

4. It is reasonably well-written:

5. It contains supporting materials where appropriate:

6. It presents its content in an appropriately understandable way:

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

JoeNMLC (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)