This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Sarabjit Singh is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
espionage,
intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Terrorism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on
terrorism, individual terrorists, incidents and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.TerrorismWikipedia:WikiProject TerrorismTemplate:WikiProject TerrorismTerrorism articles
Many in India and Pakistan have now admitted stating that Sarabjit Singh was in fact an agent who, not a farmer as he or his family been mentioning, here is the link:
I have done a major edit to the article which was largely unsourced and have added BBC and other sources supporting the content. Editors please note that this a
WP:BLP article and content that are not supported by
reliable sources can be removed--DBigXray16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Not Neutral
"currently imprisoned under false pretenses in solitary confinement in Pakistan" - stated as fact, not stating what crime is supposedly guilty of. One has to hunt though the story to see mention of supposed crime, and very little detail on supposed confession under police pressure that mainly talks about it being forced. The impression given is purpose is to persuade rather than inform.
As someone who knows nothing of case, I think "likely", or "allegedly" should be in first sentence about "false pretenses". It is absurd to say in first sentence that he is falsely imprisoned without saying for *what* in first sentence or soon after. Similarly absurd to say forced confession without giving details of what was "confessed" at similar time. (Confessed to 1 bombing? Confessed to illegally crossing border? Details of form of confession such as verbal or signed a paper, short confession, detailed, etc.)
174.3.135.28 (
talk)
03:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)reply
No because Wiki follows a policy of
WP:NPOV and uses content by
WP:RS that are neutral. for example see the neutral BBC links below and check out how they call him. --DBigXray16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Because Pakistani Government first declared that they are releasing him and later turned back on its word, and said they will not release him. Probably under pressure by fundamentalist groups and army. It was the Pakistani presidency that had taken the name of "Sarabjit" and later "Surjeet" Please read the news links on the above section and
this article to understand more about it --DBigXray16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I have removed poorly sourced content, about the religion of the person, the article
[1] does not say it clearly and there are doubts, third person claims about the religion of the subject aren't acceptable and violates
WP:BLP--DBigXray17:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Yes The source only gives an unconfirmed claim, Using it as a statement of fact is a source misrepresentation. You need to be specially careful as this is an important issue. If you can get a source that Quotes Sarabjeet accepting that he has converted or a confirmed report that he has converted then you can use that. The source you are adding does not do it and hence it is unsuitable and is actually a
WP:BLP violation. Please read
WP:PRIMARY also. Read article
1 and
2 it clearly says they are unconfirmed claims which is disputed--DBigXray13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Release
On June 26 2012, the President of Pakistan decided to release Sarabjit but a few hours later, amidst condemnation by the Jamaat-e-Islami and the Jamaat-ud-Da’wah, clarified that the prisoner to be released was Surjeet Singh and not Sarabjit.
This statement is highly misleading. They either changed their minds or clarified that the media was wrong (reports I read said it was the latter). In that case, the President of Pakistan did not "decide" to release him. This should be fixed immediately. --
IP98 (
talk)
23:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Death
The sentence currently reads:
On 26 April 2013 at about 4:30 pm, Sarabjit was allegedly attacked in the Central Jail Lahore (Kot Lakhpat jail) by other prisoners with bricks, sharp metal sheets, iron rods and blades.
Should it not read:
On 26 April 2013 at about 4:30 pm, Sarabjit was attacked in the Central Jail Lahore (Kot Lakhpat jail) allegedly by other prisoners with bricks, sharp metal sheets, iron rods and blades.
It has been proven that he was attacked, so it's not an allegation. The allegation is who did it, which are fellow prisoners.
I find that the source on his death, namely
[2] has been repeatedly removed and replaced by
2. IMHO, the source
The Hindu is far more reliable than Mumbai Voice, which does not seem like a
reliable source. Other editors may decide. I have reinserted
[3] without touching
2. Thanks.
Ralfan (
talk)
15:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)reply
As near as I can see we have one source (Dawn) which says it may have been a revenge killing. If that is it then it really has no place in this article.
Darkness Shines (
talk)
19:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Well Nang, as you know I do not usually bother to respond to you but if it is to be kept then it will have to be attributed and shown to be just a guess.
Darkness Shines (
talk)
19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Right on. That would fit with the sparse user page. Still, for those of us unaware such may inadvertently set the tone of the discussion. --
Kevjonesin (
talk)
22:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
This incident (if valid) should not be more than a brief mention in the article, as it is not much part of Singh's lifestory which is what this article covers. Regards,
Iselilja (
talk)
20:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to agree. Going into it extensively smells like WikiNews at this point. However, I'm inclined to think that some mention is justified. The reports of the Pakistani gov't responding with press releases about prison investigation in response to the attack on Haq seem to draw connections but what I've seen so far is a bit vague. I'm for leaving a streamlined account which can then be modified (+/-) later as reports develop. --
Kevjonesin (
talk)
21:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
As an aside, I'd like to note that there is precedence for going into detail regarding events after the fact when a newsworthy figure dies. The well rated
MLK article provides an extensive example. --
Kevjonesin (
talk)
21:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes, I see the aftermath is widely covered in th MLK article. But for instance the race riots is only mentioned in passing (and a sub-article), not going into details. The aftermath section in this article has far too many details regarding the alleged "revenge killing", like: "According to officials, he was hit with a sharp weapon (later reported to be an axe)... Sanaullah was admitted to the Government Medical College hospital in Jammu".
Iselilja (
talk)
21:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Perhaps I should have included the term 'established' as in "...precedence for going into detail regarding established events...". Anyway, please note that I agreed with you in my previous comment. My aside was intentionally not indented as a direct reply. It was intended as a free standing comment to support the idea of having 'a section' (noting events surrounding Haq and how they relate to Singh) not for 'the section' (as is). --
Kevjonesin (
talk)
22:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
IMHO, it was a bit extreme as the section now no longer establishes a connection to
Sarabjit Singh, the subject of the parent article. Perhaps we can find something in between which preserves the relevance and includes more ref links for those who'd like to explore more detail. Personally, I'm to tired to edit well at present so I'll let it rest for now. --
Kevjonesin (
talk)
22:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Edit request on 6 May 2013
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Was Sarabjit Singh a R&AW agent?
NEW DELHI: Sarabjit Singh had gone to Pakistan for an operation managed by a senior Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW) official, who later became the external intelligence agency's chief as well, sources have told Hindustan Times.
"Sarabjit was an Indian spy in Pakistan. He managed to accomplish the task given to him but was caught while trying to flee," said an intelligence source who refused to elaborate more on the operation taken up by the spy.
A former intelligence official, who dealt with Sarabjit's case, said the operation executed by Sarabjit didn't serve any tactical purpose but still the agency had executed many such missions in Pakistan in the early and mid 90s.
"Some of the operations executed by the R&AW during the period were totally mindless. Spies like Sarabjit and their family have paid huge cost for it. Sometimes, the agency officials executed operations out of personal bravado that they can get 'something' done in Pakistan," said the official.
Sources also point out that the agency is yet to evolve a policy for paying spies like Sarabjit or their families when they are caught in the enemy land.
"Payments vary case to case depending on the nature of operation. There is no uniformity in discreet payments to families when such agents are caught or eliminated by the enemy," says a source.
"Sarabjit had been awarded a state funeral because his case was mainly highlighted due to efforts of his politically astute sister Dalbir Kaur. His family is also being compensated, But there are many cases in which the spies came back from Pakistan knocked the doors of courts to get their dues," the source said.
WAHIED1991 (
talk)
11:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)reply
The following discussion 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.
Discussion of merger proposals should take place at the host article's talk page, i.e. at
Talk:Sarabjit Singh. You see, if this article gets merged, this article will redirect there and it's talk page can thus be deleted. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
T/
C}
09:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
New co-nomination
Per
WP:ONEEVENT &
WP:BIO1E. The subject's sole claim to notability is his murder. The reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event i.e. his murder in a prison cell. As the article's sole aim is to put some sort of Pakistani victimization against India's Sarabjit's murder in Pakistan.
Mr T(Talk?)(New thread?)14:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose. It will be undue to the Sarabjit Singh article to include stuff about the death of a man he didn't have any relation to (and which death also happened after he himself was dead). I support your other suggestion: to make the Sanaullah Haq article into an event article on his death rather than a biography, as such I support a rename of the article (rather than starting a new). Regards,
Iselilja (
talk)
09:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Merging will result in significant removal of relevant and sourced content as it will allow only the content related to Sarabjit case in that article. The incident may have occurred following Sarabjit's case, however the past history and aftermath of this case is not related to Sarabjit incidence. I understand the argument about significance of event vs significance of individual and will support a suitable renaming of this article if proposed.
SamarTalk10:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:LASTING your argument is flawed. Given the sources in the article infer this killing was a result of the killing of Sarabjit Singh (with the target article saying same) then this article should either be a redirect or deleted. Failing a merger I shall be nominating for for deletion on these grounds.
Darkness Shines (
talk)
11:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:LASTINGEvents are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. My argument is that this event became notable on its own considering the aftermath; the murder itself became the catalyst for the reactions. So yes, Sarabjit murder probably resulted in Sanaullah murder which resulted in other issues like travel advisory, security concerns, protests etc. In case of a re-nom, my stance will stay the same. The aftermath and background parts are purposely being ignored to show the case is only linked with 'Sarabjit'. Anyways, let the editors give their opinion, this is not a debate or dispute.
SamarTalk12:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Also per
WP:INDEPTH "Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally." which is obviously the case here.
Darkness Shines (
talk)
11:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose. Why? Is Sarabjit Singh more notable? Will Sanaullah Haq be punished for being a Pakistani prisoner? The article is itself notable, and should be kept here. Nothing to with Sarabjit. Faizan11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Yes dear! But his death in Indian revenge of the death of Sarabjit Singh does not make Sarabjit Singh any more notable! It was an avenge, and should be lamented, but Is this avenge or "Tit for Tat" enough to delete the article of Haq? Faizan15:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Which policy? Sarabjit is not the President, that his article is so important that it can accommodate Sanaullah as a "Sub-section". Faizan16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
An entire article never gets merged, as well you know. the merger of Pakistan Murdabad did not shift an entire article across to Anti-Pakistan sentiment did it?
Darkness Shines (
talk)
16:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
That's what we are opposing. It was never
WP:ONEEVENT. Because both of them were convicts, both of them were serving for a life term, both of them crossed the border unknowingly, both of them were killed by quarrel in the jail. And that's it, other events or differences are ignorable. Faizan16:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose and Speedy close The nominators after failing to merge and then AGAIN failing to delete Sanaullah Haq are at it again. The consensus in the community has already been reached and this merge is just trying to achieve the same desired result by other means. I oppose this for reasons above and for misuse of administrative policies. This discussion should have been closed along with the failed AfD.
Crtew (
talk)
07:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)reply
What are you on? What consensus? Do you mean the no consensus at AFD? Which lead to this, and failing this another AFD will have to be gone through.
Darkness Shines (
talk)
07:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)reply
I agree with the rename to "Murder of ..."
Crtew (
talk)
"no point is actually made by respondent" Other than you claiming a consensus when none exists you mean? And IP, cheers for following me here after I had to revert you over your OR at another article.
Darkness Shines (
talk)
08:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)reply
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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on
Sarabjit Singh. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
Guys unconfirmed source in india confirming that he was spy is really dubious claim think this should be removed as per wiki:fringe let me know what you guys think--
Shrikanthv (
talk)
16:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2016
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
sarabajeet singh was not the criminal please correct this information. he was only a small farmer and live in bhikhibhind punjab, india. he did not attempt any bomb attacks in lahore and faisalabad in pakistan.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There are too many spelling mistakes in this part of the article.
"A biographical film Sarabjit based on him was produced by Vashu Bhagnani (among others) and directed by Omung Kumar. Actress Aishwarya Raitplayedhe role of Singh's sister, Dalbir Kaur, while, Randeep Hooda and Richa Chada wilerehcast as e role osf Sarbjit Singh and his wife, Sukhpreet, respectively. The film wilas rrated through the perspective of Sarbjit Singh's sister D,albir Kaur a,nd isreleased0on May 2016 r.eThe nsor board of Pakistan hanned the film for being "anti-Pakistani"."
Wikipedia policy on
WP:FRINGE and
WP:UNDUE is very clear. It is a dubious claim contradicts with the fact that he was a farmer, and it is supposed to be removed per WP:FRINGE. You are not supposed to reinstate this sort of fringe materials "unconfirmed sources in India,....". Please stop reinstating it again and again when lots of editors above including
Shrikanthvare in favour of removing this fringe story. --
ArghyaIndian (
talk)
15:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)reply
It's not a fringe. What you are trying to say is
WP:Fringe,
WP:POV and
WP:OR. The info you are trying to remove is sourced from two sources - one Pakistani and the other one being Indian. It is indeed surprising that you have no sources to add a
WP:FAKE info but you ae lecturing other editors. Please provide sources for your claim, and may be we can discuss adding the info, this is irrespective of the fact that the info you removed should stay as it is sourced through
WP:RS.—
TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)reply
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Sarabjit Singh. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Reference link [67] not working. Change it from old URL to new URL
[5]
News provider is same i.e. Hindustan Times, however the reference URL has been changed.