How does the adage "Innocent until guilty" apply to Wikipedia? Indeed, numerous legal experts and government representatives have expressed concerns over his arrest, detention and adjournment of his trial, and that his religious background and activism may have played a role in his "abduction", but on the other hand, he is being levied with serious crimes of murder and targeting other religious groups. Certainly, this is a controversial edit that may best to preclude unless his role in the killings can be ascertained. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"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." WP:BLP

"over 140 UK Members of Parliament (MPs), including the former Brexit secretary David Davis; the f ormer international development secretary Hilary Benn; the father of the house, Sir Peter Bottomley; the SNP leader at Westminster, Ian Blackford; Sheffield's mayor, Dan Jarvis; the former Foreign Office minister Lord Hain; the former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell; and Andrew Rosindell, a Conservative member of the foreign affairs select committee have written to Dominic Raab urging him to do more to secure the release of Johal. They are concerned over Johal's detention and allegations of brutal treatment towards Johal - the Indian police have been accused of torturing him whilst in custody."^[1][2] CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about how Johal's article ought to be worded. I'm more so invoking WP:BALANCE here, regardless of how Johal may be depicted, it stands that he is considered a culprit in the murder of multiple people. His treatement in jail is of tertiary importance, his role and abettment in the 2016-2017 murders should be the primary focus. If scholars and experts commented that his role in the murders was of negligble liklihood, then I would see the inclusion as suitable, but courts have determined that he had indeed facilitated terror incidents by the funding of weapons. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The courts haven't determined anything yet. He hasn't been convicted. His torture in jail is relevant. If 140 MPs say he is being tortured it at least deserves mention in the template. CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]