Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Designated terrorist?

This is something that only the Indian government alleges. Should not be stated as objected fact in lead. Also see MOS:TERRORIST. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:29C0:961D:542D:6738 (talk) 13:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I would also add that the part of the lede that discusses alleged terrorist acts relies almost exclusively on Hindu nationalist sources, and fails to mention that the Interpol warrant was caused by a request from the government of India. 2A02:8440:C11F:1EE0:0:31:7AF7:B201 (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree; anything from Hindu nationalist/Indian government sources needs to be removed from the article or attributed properly. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Resolved by User:Vladimir.copic. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Reputed Indian Newspapers such as Indian Express,The Tribune, Hindustan Times, etc cannot be called Hindu Nationalist /Indian Govt. sources, while infact they are quite independent & regularly criticise Hindu Nationalists & the Indian government. RogerYg (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a separate discussion, but think it's entirely sensible to question all Indian media sources. India has a very poor press freedom rating. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:29C0:961D:542D:6738 (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

All the above sources are considered reliable per WP:RSP. Indeed this is a separate issue and if you have problems with a particular source you can take it to WP:RSNOTICEBOARD. We don't blanket list all sources as such though in situations of bilateral spats neutral sources not from either party should be seen where available. Gotitbro (talk) 21:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RSs that generally report factual material can still turn extremely biased when there's a bilateral row ongoing and they are seeking patriotic credit. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahh. So all Canadian outlets must also be unreliable here? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

They should also be taken with a pinch of salt, yes, and clearly it would be inadvisable to have any facts supported solely by them. And why would the article need to, when international events are covered by all the most RSP media: AP, Reuters, etc etc. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

In general, it is important to avoid playing the whataboutism game. British government funds Ukraine in the war against Russia, yet BBC is still considered far more reliable than RT. Western democracies simply have far superior press freedom and acting like that's not the case is the height of intellectual dishonesty. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:ADE2:A934:89D:FC0B (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Ratings are not the standard determining WP:RS at Wikipedia. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not calling anyone Racist please, but it seems to be in general that it may be a Racist argument that Indian Sources are not Reliable, and Western sources are Reliable. Anyone who has read multiple Indian sources from left & the right views should know that many Indian sources are among the most Reliable Sources WP:RS in the world. If you have issue with any source, please raise it on WP:RSNOTICEBOARD. RogerYg (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is the second time you have alleged racism here. Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. That said, I agree that there is nothing wrong with Indian sources that are generally considered WP:RS per above, but we must balance any claim that he was a terrorist with his own denial, and my understanding that he was never convicted, nor extradited.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, "terrorist" I understand. But a lot more, obviously true information is being watered down in this article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There is not a culture of free expression in India as there is in the Western world. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:A831:ECD1:9D2B:48D4 (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Darryl Kerrigan, I appreciate your point, and would like to clarify that I have not called anyone Racist, and I will never engage in such personal attack. I was referring broadly that some arguments may appear to be racist, if given without logical reasons. Also, something similar happening on this page: Wildly denigrating Indian sources as being Inferior to Western sources without sufficient reasons. There are many widely Reputed Indian News sources from which thousands of Wikipedia pages are sourced. I think the point is made & and I will avoid anything that may be personal attack. I assume good faith. RogerYg (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has sourced Indian sources, yes, but not usually for super politically controversial stuff involving an ongoing Indian diplomatic crisis. On this matter, Indian sources are clearly extremely one-sided. A good proxy for reliable media is whether the media at least occasionally criticizes the actions of the government. The Indian media does not. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:A831:ECD1:9D2B:48D4 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That argument is not factual, as many Indian sources regularly criticise the actions of government, Just read Indian Express, NDTV, Hindustan Times, etc on any controversial topic like Farmers protest or Manipur where many of Indian media was criticizing the government. RogerYg (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Some important points are missing in the article like Bangladesh supported Indian position or David Eby's statement on brief he received -

Indian media reported that David eby's brief was based on open source info.

https://twitter.com/sidhant/status/1705460538938126843

while international press focused on his Ottawa 'holding back' statement part.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/david-eby-ottawa-intelligence-foreign-interference-1.6976155

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/a-skeptic-canadians-guide-to-hardeep-singh-nijjars-life-2441410-2023-09-27

https://scroll.in/latest/1056843/canada-is-becoming-a-hub-of-murderers-says-bangladesh Deep007 bond007 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide some more good sources on Bangladesh's reaction , so that it could be added RogerYg (talk) 06:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC: First sentence

There has been recent discussion and some back-and-forth editing on the article MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Here are two recent formulations, and a third alternative. See Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar#"Head of a gurdwara in British Columbia" in the opening line for previous discussion. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option A: Hardeep Singh Nijjar (11 October 1977 – 18 June 2023) was a Canadian Sikh separatist leader involved with the Khalistan movement, which calls for an independent Sikh state.
• Option B: Hardeep Singh Nijjar (11 October 1977 – 18 June 2023) was a Canadian Sikh, head of a gurdwara in British Columbia and a Sikh separatist leader involved with the Khalistan movement, which calls for an independent Sikh state.
• Option C: Hardeep Singh Nijjar (11 October 1977 – 18 June 2023) was a Sikh separatist leader involved with the Khalistan movement who was shot and killed by two assailants outside of the gurdwara he headed in Surrey, British Columbia.

Discussion

It's worth noting that we are not a WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and our encyclopedic summary style is different than an encyclopedic summary style. So looking at headlines from news sources is not a good reasoning for inclusion or exclusion of content from our article's first sentence. MOS:LEADSENTENCE gives us our criteria: what, who, when, where. This is the reason I've proposed a first sentence that expends fewer words on the Khalistan movement and more words on the subject itself, establishing that he was killed in Surrey which I think are both critical pieces of information to include in the first sentence. The Khalistan movement is linked for those interested in more information than "separatist", and of course we can discuss is more in the lead/article body as well. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Khalistan is the most critical element, why Nijjar is famous. His involvement with Khalistan was the reason for his becoming head of Gurdwara, as well as his death allegedly by Indian agents, if true would be due to his involvement with Khalistan, which India considers a violent & terrorist movement because of their past violence including murder of India's former PM Indira Gandhi. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has international readers, and the lead clearly mentions Canadian. For most readers, it makes little difference whether the person was from BC or Ontario, as long as they are Canadian. Specific State is almost never mentioned in the lead opening line for any American or Canadian people Wiki pages See Bryan Adams or Paul Anka and many more. Whether to include Nijjar's death and resulting Indo-Canadian diplomatic spat in th lead is another separate discussion & I agree that "Inclusion of death in lead" is a valid discussion (rather than just Inclusion of head of gurdwara in BC) ::We can include a second sentence in lead that.

Nijjar's death in June, 2023 and subsequent allegations of Indian government's involvement resulted in diplomatic tensions between Canada and India.

Also, It's already mentioned in the lead in the first paragraph that:

In 2019, Nijjar became the head of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurudwara in Surrey, British Columbia. RogerYg (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

He is most notable at a global level for having been murdered, so that is vital information for the first sentence. Whatever other activities he got up to before then pales in global notability relative to his assassination. It's classic Streisand effect stuff. In the presumed scenario of India seeking to take out a Khalistan activist, well, in that scenario, they drew far more attention to the cause then might ever have been possible by the target while alive. But the subject was not globally notable for their activism before that. Maybe with India and Canada and nowhere else. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@RogerYg: you mention "strong reasons" to remove "the head of a gurdwara in British Columbia" phrasing, but I am not aware of any PAG-based reasons at all that have been presented to remove that phrasing. Can you elaborate? VQuakr (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, as noted in the previous TALK page sections, there were multiple reasons to remove "the head of a gurdwara in British Columbia", as pointed my me and other editors. Among the reasons, it appeared to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, as Nijjar has a conflicting legacy in WP:RS sources of being a Sikh leader and a alleged terrorist. And pushing one side giving more weighatge to Sikh Leader aspect without mentioning alleged terrorist aspect, is pushing FALSEBALANCE. Also, Sikh leader broadly cover the role of being head of some institution, so it si UNDUE repetition in the lead line.

Also, Agree with Wrythemann that "it's crucial to note that credible sources consistently label him as a Sikh separatist leader/activist. You won't find any news article headlines calling him a gurdwara head. Further, "The addition of "the head of a gurdwara in British Columbia" to the opening line was a recent change, and as per WP:ONUS and WP:PRESERVE the change should have been discussed on the talk page. So, this was added without any TALK page discussion before addition.

Meanwhile, it may also be considered as WP:PUFFERY in the opening line for someone with multiple criminal Interpol red corner notices against him. If we had a "head of temple" in the lead line, then for WP:NPOV, and BALANCE, some editors have argued that we also need to mention Interpol notices, which are widely reported in WP:RS sources, as Interpol is considered an International agency with HQ in France, see Interpol. Well, we may need more discussion and consensus to maintain Neutral & Balanced language on this page. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Undue and falsebalance are indeed WP:UPPERCASE links to the same policy, but neither is relevant. WP:DUE deals with viewpoints, and it is uncontested that he was indeed head of the gurdwara to my knowledge. It's unclear why you think allegations of terrorism are relevant. Option C clarifies the distinct concepts of "separatist leader" from the gurdwara he headed. WP:ONUS is recursive in a talk page discussion about, but you are incorrect that a proposed change should have been discussed prior to its addition, see WP:BOLD. We need to of course be careful not to imply that mere accusations, whether through Interpol or anywhere else, are indicative of guilt. As has already been explained a couple of times, we do not care what news headlines say about the subject; we are not the news. So again, what are these "strong reasons" to exclude this information? VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your disagreements, but I think the reasons given Wrythemann for WP:DUE are also reasonable, and for WP:FALSEBALANCE are quite credible. Also some editors have argued that we also need to mention Interpol notices, which are widely reported in WP:RS sources, as Interpol is considered an International agency with HQ in France.

Wiki pages of most alleged criminals & terrorists on MOST WANTED LISTS mention that in the lead. See Eugene Palmer (criminal) on Interpol's Most Wanted American's List or Khalistani terrorist Talwinder Singh Parmar

Just because someone is a Canadian citizen, Wiki rules should not change for that and we should not indulge in one sided WP:PUFFERY. I still see no good reason to include "head of gurdwra', which is already implied broadly in "Sikh leader" for brevity. Also, for someone with multiple criminal Interpol red corner notices against him. If we had a "head of temple" in the lead line, then many editors will ask for WP:NPOV, we also need to include "designated terrorist" or Interpol fugitive.

Further, WP:BOLD should not be misused to brush aside WP:CON

"Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental method of decision making, and is marked by addressing editors' legitimate concerns through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Hence, we need to continue discussion for balanced language in the lead as per WP:TALK. Thanks RogerYg (talk) 07:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

While I have placed an argument below beside my vote, I will leave a reply to the arguments posted in this discussion. The idea that Option A doesnt satisfy MOS:LEADSENTENCE is untrue - It asks us to identify who the subject is, which option A does the best, especially in light of MOS:LEADCLUTTER. It also identifies his birth and death (when) and identifies him as Canadian (where). Option A is perfectly sufficient to describe the subject without bloating it with unnecessary details. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:51, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Straw Poll

• C. Better answers the 4 W questions than the other options. Focuses on the topic. Mentions the gurdwara of which he was head and where he was shot, both critical biographical details to include. VQuakr (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

While I don't disagree that it answers these questions, I wonder if it's necessary to have all of that in the opening sentence. Is there a more effective way to get this information in simplified sentences? Pistongrinder (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Option A answers the 4Ws also, and focuses on much more important aspects of his life. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• A. The lead sentence should address notability from a neutral point of view, but according to MOS:LEADCLUTTER, "Do not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject; instead, spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." Pistongrinder (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option C per VQuakr; also fits better with MOS:ROLEBIO. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  22:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
• C ticks the most of the boxes in terms of 'who what where when', and in contrast to piston grinder's note above actually culls the lead clutter by removing the explanation of the Khalistan movement (which is not the subject and I have been thinking might be a tad undue for a while). Still have some concerns/reservations about the phrase "separatist leader" and what it means, but that phrase is present across all options so it's a moot point here, and a discussion for another thread. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• C I set aside the other arguments raised here and choose option C on the basis that his notability comes from his killing. I would argue a vast majority of this planet did not know who this man was until he was shot. Itanalot (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  He was notable well before his killing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Comment My main problem is that our description of Nijjar as a "Canadian Sikh" goes against my reading of MOS:CONTEXTBIO or at least the spirit of it. Nijjar's leadership in the Sikh community and the Khalistan movement alongside the circumstances of his death are what makes him notable. Using "Canadian Sikh separatist" is confusing as it can be read as "Canadian-Sikh separatist" which sounds like he was an advocate for a separate Sikh state out of Canadian territory. I would prefer something along the lines of ... was a Canadian leader within the Canadian-Sikh community and the Khalistan movement, which calls for an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region (or something like this) followed by a sentence about his death. I suppose option C comes closest to meeting my concerns but his Canadian citizenship is quite important to the fallout over his murder. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option A Based on the previous discussion on the subject, there are strong reasons to remove "the head of a gurdwara in British Columbia" as that appears to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Agree with Wrythemann that it's crucial to note that WP:RS credible sources consistently label him as a Sikh separatist leader/activist. You would hardly find any WP:RS news article headlines calling him a gurdwara head. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has international readers, and the lead clearly mentions Canadian. For most readers, it makes little difference whether the person was from BC or Ontario, as long as they are Canadian. Specific State is almost never mentioned in the lead opening line for any American or Canadian people Wiki pages See Bryan Adams or Paul Anka and many more. We can include a second sentence in lead that: Nijjar's death in June, 2023 and subsequent allegations of the Indian government's involvement resulted in diplomatic tensions between Canada and India. Also, "head of gurdwara is already mentioned in the lead in the first paragraph that: In 2019, Nijjar became the head of the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurudwara in Surrey, British Columbia. So it would be DUPLICATE info to add it in the opening line. RogerYg (talk) 05:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Hi, @RogerYg. I hope you don't mind, but I just wanted to let you know I moved this comment down, since the section you originally added it in was for the options, not for the poll. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 06:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  No problem. RogerYg (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  @RogerYg: The first sentence is a top level summary - the repetition of elements of its contents elsewhere in the lead is not duplication, but a function of the summary style. If it is properly summarizing the subject, it should duplicate other material, both in the lead and the body. In option C, what is being specifically placed outside the gurdwara in BC is the subject's death, which is an event. Wikipedia does provide very specific context for events. Any biography that is notable for a death will of course state where, when and how the death happened exactly ... not just "they died in Canada", which would be ridiculous. Other stuff not about the subject, such as the resulting diplomatic spat is, yes, second sentence stuff. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option A per RogerYG. DSP2092^talk 07:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• Option C per VQuakr. Though, I do agree with Pistongrinder that it could be broken up into a couple sentences instead of one run-on sentence. I also agree with Vladimir.copic comments about the confusing nature of the term "Canadian Sikh separatist" in this context and that it is useful to explain in the lede that the Khalistan movement "calls for an independent Sikh state in the Punjab region".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• C and mention his status as a Canadian citizen. Senorangel (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agree that "Canadian" should be mentioned here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Heading a gurdwara can be excluded from or remain in the description of the killing. Some recent and earlier articles mention his role there, but it is not heavily covered. Senorangel (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. He was killed outside of the gurdwara that he headed, which arguably makes that fact more important.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Does that have any special meaning, for a Sikh to die this way? Senorangel (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Not really. The location of death doesnt have any special meanings in Sikhism. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Option A - The first line should describe, in a concise manner, the fundamental identity of the topic. Much of Nijjar's life, the accusations against him, his activism, his fame and notoriety, and indeed his death, revolved around the fact that he was a vocal activist for Khalistan. While he was also the head of a gurdwara, he was not notable for being the head of the Gurdwara - And his notability far precedes his assassination.
  While these details can (and should) be covered in the lead, they are not fundamental to his identity and thus extraneous to the first line. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  What sources do you recommend to determine his notability prior to this? Most of the coverage we have right now began after his killing. Senorangel (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

  Recent coverage, of course, will focus on his killing. However, there are several articles prior to his death regarding his involvement with the Khalistan movement [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

  IG these should be enough to show notability as they are much older than the assassination, but if you want more I would be happy to supply. The recent coverage focusing more on his death is a matter of recentism. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Option A - This one is obvious. Option B is out because him being a leader of a gurdwara isn't important and Option C is out because it leaves out that he was Canadian. Even worse is some people trying to add into the first sentence that he was a terrorist even though there is no legitimate sources to support such claim. Ergzay (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Do not add back in content that claims that Hardeep was a terrorist in leed

@CapnJackSp Stop adding back in content that claims Hardeep was a terrorist. Additionally you're using extremely biased sources (Indian nationalist media) without specifying their bias. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Additionally you cannot write that "none condemned India" as that is blatantly false. The US condemned India for the attack and told India to cooperate with Canada in the investigation into the attack. Additionally the evidence for the attack came from the US. Ergzay (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is true that Nijjar was designated as a terrorist by the Indian government. Regardless of how you feel about the appropriateness of this label, he was indeed deemed a terrorist and the government of India sought his extradition. It is common in Wikipedia to include the term "designated terrorist" with attribution to the entities and nations that consider them to be one.

Osama Bin Laden- his group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),

Abu Bakr al Baghdadi-ISIL was designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations and almost all sovereign states, and Baghdadi was individually considered a terrorist by the United States and many other countries. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Was the subject of this article designated by any other government or transnational organization except the government of India? We are not discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF; we are discussing Hardeep Singh Nijjar. It is very much a non-neutral point-of-view if it is only the government of India (which has been implicated in his killing) which makes this claim, and it is troubling that several editors are trying to keep this POV in the article with such WP:WEIGHT. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that's pertinent when we're going to add attribution and specify that it is only the Government of India's claims. By not including it, we are, in my opinion, improperly omitting necessary information, contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The lede only said he was a "designated terrorist" which is not true as it removes the claim that it's only a claim of the Indian government who doesn't have jurisdiction over the man as he is Canadian and it doesn't belong in the first line in the first place. And no, it is not "common in Wikipedia to include the term "designated terrorist"". I've never even seen that term before used in articles. "designated as a terrorist" is something different, which is not what was used. And as you can see even for Osama Bin Laden it's not even him that is "designated". Organizations get designations. Ergzay (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the wording was improper and it should have been something along the lines of The Government of India designated Hardeep Singh Nijjar as a terrorist, and repeatedly sought his extradition...... It doesn't necessarily have to be in the lede, it would be sufficient to include it in the article's body. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Ergzay Sorry for my hastily written comments, your revert was correct. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:48, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the "designated terrorist" temporarily till this discussion concludes, since it was a recent addition. Pinging @Levixius who added it. IMO it is a correct descriptor as he was, indeed, designated as a terrorist. I dont buy your argument that it is a "false" descriptor, since it is widely reported in RS as well.

The rest of your claims are not true at all. NDTV being labelled "Indian Nationalist media" is laughable. And your assertion that The US condemned India for the attack is untrue - I would request you to provide the statement where the US government "condemned India". Asking to cooperate in investigation to find the truth does not amount to "condemnation". Indeed, if you bother to read the source, The Washington post noted that Canada had tried to pressure its allies to condemn India and failed to get such a response. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, was he designated by any other government besides India or countries in India's direct sphere of influence? If not, it is WP:UNDUE to include this claim in the lead. It should be removed permanently. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

First off, unless you have any valid objections to make with regards to the material, I ask you to self revert your edit that goes against WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. The longstanding material was removed under the false claim that it was untrue, while ignoring the citations that stated exactly what the text said.

Im not particularly strong on whether specifying him as a designated terrorist is due for the first line or not, but your wholesale removal of sourced and obviously relevant information is extremely inappropriate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The citations used were from low quality Indian nationalist sources which is basically the worst type of source to use for this article. There are too many of those in this article and need to get pruned out or possibly inserted with "X paper claims that..." etc. To be more explicit, you cannot say "None condemned India for its alleged involvement" when that is not what unbiased sources say. They say things like "Canada has received muted support", in other words most support Canada but the support isn't what Canada wanted. Ergzay (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: Respectfully, I will not. Per WP:ONUS, content, even if verified, can be challenged and removed and should not be restored until such content dispute is settled with a consensus to include. The question here is on the reliability of the sources/attributing potentially biased sources/misappropriation of sources, so this material isn't even properly verified. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Since you both are repeatedly making vague statements of doubt, lets go point by point.

The only claim put forth is "poor sourcing" or "Indian Nationalist media" for the removal of multiple sourced statements. I hope, then, that you will not consider Al-Jazeera or CNN to be "Indian Nationalist media".

Al Jazeera and CNN state both things which were removed by you two - [6] and [7]

CNN states

Canadian police have not arrested anyone in connection with Nijjar’s murder.

Al Jazeera states,

Canada has yet to provide any evidence of India’s involvement in the killing.

None of Canada’s most important allies – not the US, the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand, all knitted tightly together in the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance – echoed Trudeau’s allegations. They have declared their concern and urged full investigations. But none has stepped up to condemn India for its alleged involvement in the June slaying on Canadian soil of Sikh separatist, Hardeep Singh Nijjar..

Our article was stating

As of October 2023, the Canadian authorities have not made any arrests in connection with the murder, and Canada has provided no evidence implicating the Indian government.

Canada's Five Eyes allies, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, expressed their concern and encouraged India to collaborate in the ongoing investigation. None condemned India for its alleged involvement.

Kindly explain now, why you insist on a blanket removal of these statements. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll wait for Ergzay to reply with more than assertions of Indian nationalist bias for these points, but I agree that the above sourcing you demonstrate is adequate. However, the inclusion of As of October 2023, the Canadian authorities have not made any arrests in connection with the murder, and Canada has provided no evidence implicating the Indian government. in the lead section omits the context (included in prose) that says citing the need to protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods. which I believe should be included if we are to keep this point in the lead section.

Furthermore, I propose this wording tweak for the other piece of challenged content.

Canada's Five Eyes allies, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, expressed their concern and encouraged India to collaborate in the ongoing investigation, but have not condemned India for its alleged involvement.

The wording at present shows all citations ties to the sentence "None condemned India..." and none to the sentence "Canada's Five Eyes allies,.." and this would correct that. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

If you just quote "Canadian police have not arrested anyone in connection with Nijjar’s murder." then it's a form of WP:CHERRYPICKING. It pushes the narrative that Canada is basically making things up which is the common position in Indian nationalist media. I am fine with those two sources but you need to include the context from those sources. Also that Wikipedia wording you included is acceptable (though I would tweak it) but is definitely NOT what was in the page. Ergzay (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A reply to both of you - I agree that merging those two sentences for citation clarity is fine, but stuffing the lead with justifications and clarifications as provided by the Canadian government is not WP:NPOV (those clarifications and claims can, however, be placed in the body if they are not there already). If we were to present viewpoints of officials, then Indian officials have specified that the Canadian government shared no actionable information at all, which is different from not sharing evidence. I have modified the text accordingly, with a trivial change in terminology for the sentence merge as well.

Also, I dont understand the line Also that Wikipedia wording you included is acceptable (though I would tweak it) but is definitely NOT what was in the page, could you clarify that? As far as I can see, it matches the wording that was there exactly. [8] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

They were there already, and it is essential context, especially when we are giving it the substantive amount of WEIGHT that we are by placing it in the lead. The lead should include all relevant points that contribute to summarizing the prose, so I'm not worried about "stuffing" it with useful clarifications. Also, when you reverted us today, you added a the same citation twice in your next edit. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It is obvious that the Canadian government, if asked about it, will downplay it. It is also true that the Indian government, if asked about it, will drone on about it (as the high commissioner did to the globe and mail). The point is, The Canadian Government has 1) Not made any arrests, and 2)Pointedly refused to talk about releasing any evidence (which, contrary to their claims, safely can and should actually be released when making allegations as serious as these - See the Turkish allegations against the Saudis). And when we insert the Canadian government's point-of-view after every line critical of them, I do think it is "stuffing" the lead.

The material added was also misleading - "Investigating three suspects" written without context seems like they have found 3 individuals possibly linked to the murder, when in reality they have only discovered that there were 3 attackers (which they haven't identified or gotten a list of suspects of, as far as I can see in RS).

PS: Again, I also did not understand They were there already, what was where already? And I have removed the extra cite, thanks for pointing it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This is now off topic, but I'd argue they very much cannot release the direct evidence, and the added clarifications reinforce that. This is a standard thing for intelligence where you don't publicly reveal the details of the intelligence. The point for this type of thing is not to win in the court of public opinion, the point is to let your enemy know that you know. If you reveal the precise intelligence you point out your sources, possibly exposing/endangering them, or encourage them to stop talking to you. For example the actual source may be an official inside the Indian government who's acting on behalf of the Canadian government. So no it is not the case that the intelligence "safely can and should actually be released", and even if it could be, that's not for us Wikipedia editors to decide if it safely or cannot safely be released. Ergzay (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

When making allegations publicly, you cannot avoid scrutiny of your claims by the public. That the Canadian government claims they cant release information is their claim, but we know that others have, indeed, released information publicly in similar cases, therefore we must take their claim to be their opinion and not fact. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I've again reverted your edits. Stop this nonsense. I suggest you look to make sure you're not violating WP:SPA given almost your edits are focused on India. Ergzay (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Here's the three things your reverted:

1. The change that stated that Canada was investigating three suspects, which is in the source.

2. The change that stated the reasons Canada was not releasing the intelligence, which is in the source.

3. The change that rephrased the statement that asserted that no condemnation had been made (something we cannot know) instead specifying it as that no public condemnation had been made (which is in the sources).

Now, by what Wikipedia policy are you continuing to revert these things that are in the sources? If you continue to revert without clarifying then I'll take this to the administrators notice board. Ergzay (talk) 14:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

1) Canada is investigating regarding three people who they are trying to find. Claiming they are investigating three suspects implies there are three individuals who are being looked into for links to the killing.
2) It is the claim of the Canadian government that they cannot release it for opsec. It is their viewpoint. As such, it belongs in the body (where it is cited) and it is not supposed to be used to "justify" their actions in the lead of this article.
3) Al Jazeera doesn't mention "publicly". Your opinion about what we (and presumably journalists, else the claim wouldn't make sense) can or cannot know is just WP:OR and not a valid argument. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

1) "Canadian police have not arrested anyone in connection with Nijjar’s murder. But in an August update, police released a statement saying they were investigating three suspects and issued a description of a possible getaway vehicle, asking for the public’s help." from the CNN source. The CNN source used for the claim that no one has been arrested also immediately follows that up with the investigation into the three suspects.

2) Yes it is their viewpoint, and it is specified as such in the article. There's nothing wrong with using their own viewpoint here as long as it is stated that it is their viewpoint. If you have an issue that it isn't obvious that it's their viewpoint, I'm completely fine with changing @GhostOfDanGurney's wording to clarify further that its their viewpoint. Additionally there's nothing strange about this viewpoint. It's a standard statement given whenever the press asks about the details of a source. Look up on google "protect intelligence sources and methods" and you'll see this standard phrasing everywhere. If you're unfamiliar with this term and think its confusing then we can add another source specifying the meaning.

3) "Publicly" is implied unless the source mentions "citing officials talking off the record" or something similar. No WP:OR needed here. Ergzay (talk) 16:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @GhostOfDanGurney @Suthasianhistorian8. @CapnJackSp insists (by coming to my talk page and claiming I'm violating WP policy) that he has consensus to revert my edits even though everyone has been arguing against him. Can I get the two of you to reply here agreeing with this edit? Ergzay (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Notably one of the edits reverted was made by @GhostOfDanGurney. Ergzay (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Merge request

Hardeep Singh Nijjar#Death and subsequent diplomatic dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on behalf of @Schwinnspeed. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The rational given by Schwinnspeed --- I have redirected 2023 Canada-India diplomatic row to Diplomatic fallout section on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page.

There have been several discussions (1, 2, 3) about whether this content needs to be split and a new page created to cover the 2023 India Canada diplomatic crisis (or in this instance "row") but I believe consensus still applies given current events are still largely in line with what is already covered.

Alternatively, we can redirect this page to 2023 Diplomatic Crisis section on the Canada - India relations page. Open to this option (now that I'm thinking about it, actually prefer it) but don't think the current content and previous consensus warrant a separate page that would be largely WP:Redundant. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I oppose this merge. These are two different topics. Putting too much diplomatic content here is irrelevant (and UNDUE) as it doesn't directly tie into the life of Nijjar. VR _talk 17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

your vote doesn't make sense. You said oppose but you want diplomatic content to be merged into that article and don't remove redirect until this consesus completes. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

There is no article right now on the 2023 diplomatic row. Only a redirect to this article. Senorangel (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

These should be separate articles. Too much has been forced into this biography that isn't really about Hardeep Singh Nijjar.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You may want to make that more clear. Vice regent does not seem to have understood what is being requested either. Senorangel (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I have made it clear below. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

There's not real cause for merging here. This is content with different contexts. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This isn't really a merge request? We still need to keep content related to the death of Hardeep Nijjar on this page. Ergzay (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: I have proposed a potential WP:MERGE or WP:SPLIT of the content related to the Diplomatic Fallout into a new article. There has been a recurring issue with users creating separate articles without prior consensus, resulting in articles that essentially constitute WP:CFORK and are WP:DUPLICATE of the existing Hardeep Singh Nijjar article.

The initial attempt to address this was the creation of the 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis article, as documented in the discussion at Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar/Archive_1#Split_content_to_2023_India-Canada_diplomatic_crisis, which unfortunately did not reach a conclusive decision. Subsequently, another user copied the content to create the 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row article, again without a prior merge or split proposal.

These new articles share approximately 90% of their content with the original Hardeep Singh Nijjar article. Therefore, I have submitted this request to initiate a formal merge or split discussion, with the aim of reaching a consensus-based resolution. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Merge to 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis as per nomination. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 06:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Isnt voting "merge per nom" in the middle of the discussion a bit deceptive when its your own proposal? I dont think its strictly prohibited or anything, but when you are the nominator, it should usually specify that. (eg "Merge as nominator per above comments"). Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• This is a very poorly worded "merge request". It seems more like the user is requesting the content to be forked to the new article, not merged (Merge implies that two articles become one, which seems to have caused the confusion).
  Anyway, this request and subsequent discussion is enough of a confusing mess that I would recommend a procedural close with a recommendation to the proposers to frame the next one better. As such the article is fine now, so I dont see a benefit to radical changes. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This request is fine. In request only Diplomatic Fallout section is mentioned to merged into new article which would not make new article's content duplicate or fork work. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

You cant merge into a new article bruh :faceepalm:

You are talking of splitting/forking content, but you keep referring to it as "merging" content, which is why half the people are confused here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I have been mentioning 'merge' or 'split' because there already exist articles with content in them:

• 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis
• 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row

2402:A00:152:85D3:D18C:C951:3A77:F256 (talk) 10:58, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Theres no content there, just redirect templates. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp, I do think, it is not confusing but if you think this is confusing in technical terms, you can close this and re-propose the request. Regards 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Proposing this would imply that I support this, which I dont, so if you want to do this proposal, please start a fresh one making it clear that you want to split content from the section here into its own article.

If you want help closing this discussion, let me know. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ok i'm proposing the new requst... close this discussion. 2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I have proposed a potential WP:SPLIT of the content related to the Diplomatic Fallout into a new article 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis or 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row. There has been a recurring issue with users creating separate articles without prior consensus, resulting in articles that essentially constitute WP:CFORK and are WP:DUPLICATE of the existing Hardeep Singh Nijjar article.

The initial attempt to address this was the creation of the 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis article, as documented in the discussion at Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar/Archive_1#Split_content_to_2023_India-Canada_diplomatic_crisis, which unfortunately did not reach a conclusive decision. Subsequently, another user copied the content to create the 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row article, again without a prior merge or split proposal.

These new articles share approximately 90% of their content with the original Hardeep Singh Nijjar article. Therefore, I have submitted this request to initiate a formal split discussion, with the aim of reaching a consensus-based resolution.

pinging involved useres: @Lukt64, The Kip, Schwinnspeed, and CapnJackSp: 2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)