Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 - [1] and [2]

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. [3] 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'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you claiming that given, in the entire world, because intelligence has been released previously, that it somehow means that all intelligence is therefore okay to release? Just because there's some other instance somewhere in history where intelligence has been cleared for release doesn't at all imply that ALL intelligence is okay to release. If anything, given that so little intelligence tends to get released, the few instances where it is released tends to show that most intelligence is kept silent.

I agree with you that you can't avoid public scrutiny if you make an allegations publicly but then don't back it up with detailed evidence. However given India's history of extra-judicial killings in Pakistan, the Canadian government's very high respectability among first world nations, and the lack of making frivolous accusations in the past, there's a lot of leeway for them to play with among the general public. I'd say most people in the world (outside of India) believe Canada's claims. On the other side of things too, even if Canada releases the evidence, I'd say most people in India would simply move the goalposts and claim that the evidence is fake so there's little value in releasing it given that most people's opinions on the topic are already made up.

And just so we're clear, these are just my own personal opinions and not related to the edits here. Ergzay (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, I am in no position to challenge your personal beliefs, but we cannot base our edits to the article on our beliefs - We base them on RS.

It is not always impossible to release evidence, which means that it it the Canadian governments stance that they do not wish to release whatever they have. Again, their explanation of their stance should not be used to try and justify or to add credibility to their claims. When we state a fact, that they have not made anything public or arrested anyone, it should not then be "clarified" by inserting the POV of the Canadian government. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

> we cannot base our edits to the article on our beliefs - We base them on RS.

I completely agree. This specific comment chain is simply a side conversation.

> It is not always impossible to release evidence, which means that it it the Canadian governments stance that they do not wish to release whatever they have.

Of course it is the Canadian government's stance that they do not wish to release whatever they have, that's a tautological statement, however that is not a justification to simply ignore the very normal and very standard reasons they state on why they cannot release the evidence yet.

> Again, their explanation of their stance should not be used to try and justify or to add credibility to their claims.

Similarly stripping out their justifications and trying to portray their statements in a method that makes the statements look like they have low credibility would also be incorrect. We present what the sources say. Trying to imply to the readers that the Canadian government has low credibility would be a ridiculous level of WP:OR. Ergzay (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

random break

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)

For both 1) and 2) - You arent listening to my argument at all. These are misleadingly worded statements, that you have inserted into the article without discussion and are trying to get others to agree to it post facto. One sided claims should not used to justify the actions of one party. In the body, where both sides are covered, we have also added these statements.
3) " "Publically" is implied" is your own opinion and a strange one at that. And if indeed it is so obviously implied, then we need not include it in the text at all, no? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

1) The CNN source says that they're "investigating three suspects". The article says they're "investigating three suspects". You can claim the source is "misleadingly worded" but that would be WP:OR. It's not Synthesis either given that they're right next to each other in the source. And yes we have it in the body and the lede is a summary of the body. Without also including even a summary of the that there's three suspects being investigated it presents a false summary of the situation. Also it isn't "one-sided". The source is CNN.

2) No one is trying to "justify the actions of one party" here.

3) I was beginning to be somewhat partial to this argument so I went and took another look at the article. However if you look at the article as written currently the next sentence talks of private complaints, so contrasting those private statements with the lack of public ones seems correct to me. Ergzay (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the body, not a repetition of a selective portion of it. Again, for both 1) and 2), when you are adding the opinion/stance/claim of the Canadian government next to a portion of critical text in order to "water it down" (as discussed on your talk page), it is indeed one sided and it is indeed an attempt to justify the criticisms of the Canadian government. (As for the separate discussion about the ambiguous nature of the writing, see [4] - They have identified that there are 3 people, but have not identified any of the three. They are asking for public help in trying to get leads.)

If we are stuffing opinions in the lead, why not add the Indian claim that let alone evidence, Canadian government has not even shared any actionable information? Or the Indian claim that any such attempt at snooping on diplomats is illegal? Or the characterisation by several RS that Canadian government has fumbled and been evasive about any evidence for its accusations?

Keep facts in lead, additional comments in body.

3) makes no sense, how private "concerns" can justify adding an unsourced label eludes me. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:43, 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)

So I was busy with a) trying to get an article accepted at WP:ITN/R and b) my job so I missed all of this, but yes, I believe this diff is more in line with NPOV. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  09:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Why? Having only the "clarifications" of one side doesnt seem very NPOV to me. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

GhostOfDanGurney Why did you revert my edit, the article clearly states

Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Ali Sabry on Monday, reacting to the India-Canada diplomatic row, said terrorists have found safe haven in Canada and their Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came out with the outrageous allegations without any proof. Speaking exclusively to ANI, Mr Sabry said he is "not surprised" by his remarks since Trudeau keeps making "outrageous and substantiated allegations." "Some of the terrorists have found safe haven in Canada. The Canadian PM has this way of just coming out with some outrageous allegations without any supporting proof. The same thing they did for Sri Lanka, a terrible, total lie about saying that Sri Lanka had a genocide. Everybody knows there was no genocide in our country," he said.

NDTV is widely known as a left wing, anti Modi news article btw, so we have enough reliable sourcing. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I added 2 more articles, one from The Diplomat, which is a news organization based in Washington DC and one from the Colombo Telegraph, a Sri Lankan news organization. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp: The solution, as I said before, would be to add the other side and not omit the context from such a highly-WEIGHTed area of the article. If we're going to keep talking in circles on this, I would suggest some form of dispute resolution.

@Suthasianhistorian8: I would assume that @GenQuest: added it because it did not have an in-line citation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  10:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

An inline citation would be needed, as the text suggests there is a typo, or perhaps the quote is by a non-english speaker: "...suggested Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was prone to making "outrageous and substantiated allegations"." Something can not be outrageous and substantiated at the same time. That would be an oxymoron. If it is a true quote, I would leave it out. Regards, GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Thwarted assassination attempt in USA

There is only early reporting on this story, but it may be something that needs to be incorporated into the article when additional sources are available. Perhaps it also affects the split discussion above, as there are allegations of similar assassinations/attempts in the USA and UK.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

[5] The Globe and Mail has it up now. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

After the initial story by The Financial Times, WP:RS have begun covering the story, including The Associated Press and The New York Times.

I believe this should be mentioned in the article, but consensus must be obtained on the WP:DUE weight Lord Clayton7 (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

In regards to DUE; in the article's present state, it is absolutely DUE weight as part of the diplomatic fallout. All of the above sources are prominently mentioning the Nijjar murder and therefore it should be included in that section.

However, in regards to the split discussion, it does not at all change my !vote. I still think the content should be split and frankly I still question Nijjar's notability being independent of his murder. At least half of the prose of the article already is dedicated to his murder/the diplomatic row and most of the sourcing otherwise is contained in articles written after the killing and which are dedicated to answering the question "who was killed?" ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:46, 24 November 2023 (UTC)