Talk:Sarabjit Singh

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

Raw Agent[edit]

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:


Dawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.19.234 (talk) 08:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Major Edit[edit]

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--DBigXray 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not Neutral[edit]

"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]


I've tried to fix this up slightly in the first sentence, but it's a bit WP:WEASEL. Dondelelcaro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Is that fair to say that Convicted Hindu Terrorist...Let me know. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 14:33, 27 June 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. --DBigXray 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13793583
  2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8407727.stm
  3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18595839

Sarabjit is not released by Pakistani government[edit]

Sarabjit is not released by Pakistani government then why all this hype about. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 14:39, 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 --DBigXray 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable Pakistani news sources? or is it all fantasy created by tabloid Indian newspapers. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The news about Presidential Pardon is already supported by BBC News articles mentioned above, for Neutrality as well as a Pakistani news article --DBigXray 10:54, 28 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--DBigXray 17:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:You can't remove source material without conensus on the issue. RiseofIslam (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)striking comments by a sock --DBigXray 07:29, 7 July 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--DBigXray 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

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[edit]

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.

- Victor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.64.25.3 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I went ahead and made the change. --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reliable sources from the article[edit]

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]

Date of Birth[edit]

Date of birth says 1963 or 1864, this must be a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahr2000 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it. I moved this section to the bottom of this talk page since it is the newest section. EricEnfermero Howdy! 23:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding subsection #Attack on Pakistani prisoner in Jammu[edit]

Here's a section link to start things off:

#Attack on Pakistani prisoner in Jammu

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:55, 5 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]

[4] Reuters India also states it as an "apparent" revenge attack so we have two now. Breezeplushy (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Blocked sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 14:03, 7 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]
Kev, Breezeplushy is very likely a sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat, hence my comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:25, 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]
  • All good. I think your input about the MLK article was valuable. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 22:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reshaping has begun![edit]

User:Iselilja took the initiative and made an initial constriction of the section.

<link to diff>

  • 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[edit]

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]

Yes he was an agent as quoted by the sources, and the info regarding it is already in the article. Faizan -Let's talk! 11:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

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.

The consensus was opposed.Crtew (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion for the merger proposal is taking place Here Darkness Shines (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Sanaullah Haq[edit]

Moved from Talk:Sanaullah Haq
 – Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 15:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per ONEEVENT & WP:BIO1E Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Samar Talk 10:54, 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:LASTING Events 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. Samar Talk 12:43, 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. Faizan 11:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How can you say it has nothing to do with Singh when the sources in this article say otherwise? Who was Sanaullah, the latest Indian victim in tit-for-tat killings Haq, who was serving a life sentence in India, became a victim of vengeance a day after a convicted Indian spy, Sarabjit Singh, was attacked in a similar fashion at Kot Lakhpat Jail in Lahore. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 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? Faizan 15:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious oppose - pointless proposal, unless you want the Sarabjit Singh article to be converted into an article about Sanaullah. Mar4d (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a subsection there about him, which according to policy is all that is needed. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:16, 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". Faizan 16:00, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the policies mentioned above. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't merge an entire article as a "subsection", that too on another article. Mar4d (talk) 16:21, 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. Faizan 16:31, 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]
No comment necessary as no point is actually made by respondent. Crtew (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - see this - Rename article to MURDER of Sannullah Haq. also Darkness try″ to be civilised. Insulting and aggressive behaviour is against WP:CIVIL 92.40.253.136 (talk)Blocked IP of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 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 attempt to merge and the attempt to delete BOTH failed. This is just pointless ....Crtew (talk) 08:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing people of following is also a violation of WP:CIVIL. Crtew (talk) 08:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Crtew. Repeated pointless nominations. Faizan 08:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious the IP followed me, the merger proposal was started yesterday. It runs for 7 days. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bordering on the paranoid. I think you need to be brought to your senses92.40.253.136 (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Blocked IP of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Nang. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks to me like this proposal is a bust and should be closed. Crtew (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone second a move to close? Crtew (talk) 09:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has run for seven days, it does not need a second person to close it. Once closed it will go back to AFD per notability guidelines. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Crtew (talk) 11:51, 25 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[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:37, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unconfirmed sources! ?[edit]

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[edit]

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.

Akashwlla (talk) 18:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. clpo13(talk) 23:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


(talk) Please refer to the cited reference it is not reliable and is more going in the direction of wp:fringe --Shrikanthv (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2016[edit]

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"."

Please correct the mistakes in bold. 15Shahin (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - it was some of the vandalism before the page was protected - have reinstated the last "clean" version - Arjayay (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced content removal[edit]

Ref this: ‎ArghyaIndian Care to explain why are you removing sourced information? Pinging @Clpo13: for opinion.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 14:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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]
I think we should settle this amicably through an RFC or may be moved to indo-pak friendship board --Shrikanthv (talk) 16:33, 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2016[edit]


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.


Hemant50505 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Modulus12 (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarabjit_Singh&oldid=1216539399"