Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Head of a gurdwara in British Columbia" in the opening line

Let's address this issue head-on. Starting Hardeep Singh Nijjar's description with "the head of a gurdwara in British Columbia" appears to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. 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.

Just to be crystal clear, I'm not denying his role as the head of a local gurdwara. What I'm asserting is that, given the prevailing consensus and his usual portrayal, this descriptor may not be appropriate for him in this context. Wrythemann (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

We're not a newspaper and don't rely on headlines or bylines to establish article content (including the first sentence), so this isn't a very good reason to support its removal. See MOS:FIRST. This seems like a significant aspect of the subject and I'm not seeing much of a reason to exclude it from the first sentence of this article from your reasoning above. An aside: I'm guessing you don't mean given the prevailing consensus in the Wikipedia, WP:CON sense since that would be presupposing a conclusion, but it may help to avoid confusion to use less ambiguous language. VQuakr (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

By prevailing consensus, I was referring to the state of the article when it was featured on the front page a few days ago. 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. Wrythemann (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. this article has quintupled in size in the last week, so argument based on any "existing consensus" is weak indeed. I guess we agree that this content should be WP:PRESERVED then? I'm frankly having trouble extracting a cogent reasoning for removing it from your reply. "Not enough process" is not a good reason. VQuakr (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The NYT notes he was head of "the oldest, largest and most politically powerful of the dozen or so Sikh temples in Surrey." so "undue" seems unlikely. It strikes me as a very significant biographical aspect of the subject. As near as I can tell the description of him as head is factual, not a matter of opinion or otherwise contested, so WP:FALSEBALANCE (which discusses viewpoints) is not applicable. VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Let's add his main occupation and include "plumber" before all the descriptors. Wrythemann (talk) 21:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand it's actually a job, and the only job that the subject is associated with, unlike 'being a separatist', which is more of an ideological disposition and/or nationalistic side-hobby. It's also strongly linked to the overall biographical arc. The position was the platform that enabled the subject to launch a controversial referendum, and he was shot outside of the temple that he led. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

His actual job was plumbing. [1] [2]. Wrythemann (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

From your linked source: find out the real truth that the western media is not telling you. Yikes. VQuakr (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree that "the head of a gurdwara in British Columbia" should be removed as appears to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. 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. Also, this was added without any TALK page consensus and needs to be removedRogerYg (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hrm, the UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE concerns were already addressed above, as was the focus on "headlines". Sort of concerning that those are ignored and you're instead defaulting to repetition and forcing your preferred version on to the article, [3], with status quo stonewalling. There is no "stable version" on an article this young. VQuakr (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note the previous stable version in the TALK section on "Changes in First sentence". Also "head of gurdwara" was added without any Discussion, and there is no Consensus on that. Also, UNDUE and FALSEBALANCE concerns are still under debate and are credible concerns. Therefore, such change which was made without any discussion should be reverted as per WP:TALK. Further, as per WP:RS as mostly the WP:RS sources do not headline Nijjar as head of gurdware. So, this change has lot of issues to be resolved before it can be on Wikivoice. RogerYg (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Your assertion that a consensus exists doesn't make it the case. Even if you repeat the assertion. This is a statement of fact that is not contested so "wikivoice" concerns are not relevant. VQuakr (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your broader point that this is new article and there is no stable version. I think we need to continue discussion as per WP:TALK to find consensus for agreeable language.RogerYg (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If anything, it is the lead attribution of "separatist leader" that is something of a reach in Wikivoice. This only appears in titular form in a single Reuters piece, while a great many pieces instead say "Sikh activist". It is also a bit ambiguous. Separatist leader how? Is this an allusion to the aforementioned allegations from the Indian side, or the role in the referendum or what? It is unclear if it refers to specific claims or is simply a general characterization. One way or another, it is all together less definitive language than either "Sikh activist" or "leader of a gurdwara". Iskandar323 (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

A broader point here is that by removing this text, as some editor has boldly and inappropriately done mid-discussion, the lead sentence now provides no 'where' information indicating where the subject was active. It provides an allusion to it by way of nationality, but that is really a cop out, and the rest of it is just generalisation about his role in the Khalistan movement - all in all making for a rather non-descript first sentence. Also given that the subject is now almost certainly best known globally for being gunnned down outside of said gurdwara, his death should also really form part of the first sentence. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, the lede needs some mention/allusion to the fact that he lived in BC at the time of his death. That should likely be a reference to his position as head of a gurdwara in BC and work as a plumber in the lower mainland.--

Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

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) RogerYg (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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.

RogerYg (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

US confirms intelligence sharing among Five Eyes partners before PM Justin Trudeau accused India of link with murder

@RogerYg:@CapnJackSp: here is the news link of US confirming intelligence sharing among Five Eyes partners before PM Justin Trudeau accused India of link with murder. So this line on the article needs to be updated from “As of September 2023, Canada has not provided any evidence linking the Indian government to Nijjar's death.” To “As of September 2023, Canada has not provided any evidence linking the Indian government to Nijjar's death but US has confirmed the intelligence sharing before Trudeau accused India of link with murder.” Or however you guys think best fits.

[4] 2600:1017:B101:6A68:1881:4BDD:4DFF:F0EA (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

These reports are about the Intelligence information shared on basis on which Canada mentioned "credible allegations of potential link". As of Sep 30th, 2023 Indian Foreign Minister, Jaishankar denied receiving any specific evidence from Canada. British Columbia Premier also mentioned that he has not seen any evidence. The Investigation is in an early stage, with no arrests yet. So, there is no WP:RS sources that can confirm credible evidence from Canada as of Sep 30, 2023. RogerYg (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

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 [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
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)

Merge request

WITHDRAWN

Request was too confusing - New section started by user below. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

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 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:

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)

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.