Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar/Archive 1

Requested move 19 September 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Leaning not moved. Noting that this should've been speedy not moved per WP:SK#6. No prejudice against a split discussion, but keep SK6 in mind. (closed by non-admin page mover) CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 15:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Hardeep Singh Nijjar → Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar – This recently deceased person appears to notable for his death and the aftermath and is therefore a WP:BLP1E. The article being created posthumously I believe is evidence of this. The scope of the article should therefore be on the death and aftermath, not of the person, which is liable (and has already been) WP:ATTACKed by POV-pushers. Move to "Death/Killing/Murder/Assassination of ..." (not fussed over the wording). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney Support - per nom. MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose There seems to have been a reasonable amount of coverage of Nijjar before his murder going back to 2016 so I’m not sure if BLP1E applies. Here are some examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] There is also a larger amount of coverage in Indian sources which, to me, often don’t seen reliable but demonstrate wider notability before his murder. Vladimir.copic (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if many Indian sources on this subject could be reliable given the sensitivity of the issue. Regardless, people are primarily searching for his name on the internet because of the diplomatic row his death has caused. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, of course people are Googling this more now because of the murder. My point is that Nijjar, and to a certain extent the diplomatic row around him, was notable before the murder and therefore isn’t BLP1E which is the argument for moving the article. I’ve provided four non-Indian sources demonstrating this from a very quick Google. Vladimir.copic (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose, large number of sources covering Nijjar before his death, and per CapnJackSp. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 06:28, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose Too soon to create a separate article. Also I am not convinced with the POV-pushing examples given by the nominator.

Can you give us examples of attacks by POV-pushers? Wrythemann (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

[5] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

How is that POV pushing? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah - we now have the New York Times stating the same. Not POV. Wrythemann (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

[6] ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This seems borderline. If you read the source provided it does allude to this. Wrythemann (talk) 23:14, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - He isnt just notable for the death, he has featured in quite a few wanted lists earlier also and was a known separatist leader. Coverage of this exists, and so BLP 1E isnt valid in this case. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose If anything would made, the thing should have been made would be separate pages as Hardeep Singh Nijjar by himself with his past life has enough encyclopedic information to make an entire page while his assassination, death and investigation of this crime scene is an entire different set of information. Cactus Ronin (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy close as moot; I have created Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - He seems to be a notable figure in the Khalistan movement prior to his death. Ironically, that seems to be what made him a target for assassination. Riposte97 (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I have my doubts that it's even possible to expand the biography aspects of this article beyond a stub, if this article is not renamed and content is instead split into Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

In any case, it may be prudent to wait a while, as I expect a great deal will be written about him in WP:RS in the days to come. Riposte97 (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Support per nom and to cleanly separate notability problems. The notability of Nijjar apart from his death does not yet have a clear consensus (and is being debated in this very RfM), but there is clear consensus that Nijjar's death is notable. Let this article be about the consensus notable subject that prompted it to be created. If that makes room for an article on Nijjar himself then that’s good: let a consensus on the notability of Nijjar himself be determine by editors of an article about him. Moving this article will vastly simplify the difficulties of editors determining how to apply BLP appropriately. Since this article falls also under contentious topic sanctions, more clarity on how to apply policies will support the two goals of avoiding disruption to Wikipedia and off producing a quality article. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:33, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney Come on, I mean Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar is just a classic WP:CONTENTFORK… It gives no real additional information and isn’t needed at this stage. Maybe this needs a stand alone in the future but right now - no way. Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is information than can be moved from this article to the other. Or you can otherwise expend it. I'm late for work now, though. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Soft Support - He seems best known for his death and murder, and the resulting international relations crisis. I note that the article was created two days after his death, not while he was living. That said, I could be convinced that he was notable prior to his death if shown significant coverage in WP:RS pre-dating his death on June 18, 2023.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose seems to me that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here. I suspect there's already plenty of source material for an article about him. See eg Alexander Litvinenko who was low profile before his poisoning/death. We also have an article Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Whether the current murder will become such a massive story is difficult to tell. Nigej (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is a work in progress; lots of articles on notable subjects have not been created yet. There are plenty of RS available covering the subject independent of his death. VQuakr (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  There are four sources above as noted by Vladimir.copic. I am not sure those alone amount to WP:SIGCOV. Are there other RS you think we should be considering to demonstrate notability as distinct from his death? Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support as per nomination Worldiswide (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Hardeep Singh Nijjar had reasonable coverage before his murder going back to 2016 in both Indian and international news, as he was involved in many controversial activities before his death, including links to violent activities in India; and his public anti-India speeches in Canada. It seems to be a RACIST argument that WHITE Western Newspapers are Reliable and BROWN INDIAN Newspapers are Not Reliable. Anyone following Indian news knows that India has a respected Press and News media, which regularly criticizes the Ruling party on many issues. IT IS SAD that such an argument is even being put on Wikipedia. Disagree with GhostOfDanGurney on changing the title. Agree with Vladimir.copic that there was coverage even in Western media, which along with Indian media satisfies NOTABILITY and WIDE COVERAGE factors to keep the Current title.RogerYg (talk) 06:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the title should not be changed, but let's assume good faith. An anonymous username, not my real name 11:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  What are you talking about? The four sources mentioned above which predate his death are Canadian or American. I asked above if there are other sources which demonstrate his notability before his death. If there are others you think we should consider, provide them. Of course we will consider them regardless of whether they are Canadian, American, Indian or British, etc...-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 12:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Hardeep Singh Nijjar was notable during his lifetime, and the absence of a Wikipedia article until his death does not diminish his notability. He received coverage in reliable news sources, particularly from India, regarding his activities. While he may not have been notable to Western media and its audience until his death, he was certainly notable for Indian media and people. It would be a worthy attempt to create article about his death as events unfold and more sources provide coverage. But, his biographical article should be kept in my opinion. --Pavan santhosh.s (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose @GhostOfDanGurney, Changing the title is not recommended in this case. It is evident that WP:BLP1E does not apply to Hardeep Singh Nijjar. A significant number of reliable sources had covered Nijjar before his demise, and the absence of a Wikipedia article until his passing does not diminish his notability. Furthermore, Separate creation of Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar is just a classic case of WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:TOOSOON. It provides no real additional information and isn't needed at this stage. Perhaps it may warrant a standalone article in the future, but not at the present moment. 150.129.164.197 (talk) — 150.129.164.197 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Mildly Oppose - While Wikipedia only paid attention to this person after his murder (too busy covering Taylor Swift and Star Trek?), it does appear that he was of some note beforehand for his separatist, etc., activities. If the "Death of" article has nothing new and different, perhaps that one should be axed for now. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:00, 21 September 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.

Serious review requested

Whole article has just become homepage for info surrounding his death and allegations by Canadian authorities. The article needs to be sanitized and only person-specific encyclopedic content should remain on this page. Also @GhostOfDanGurney has already created separate page for his death and allegations. Ankraj giri (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This is exactly why I tried to change the scope of the article before creating the Death of... article, but was reverted. Fully agree that the BLP issues (re ent deaths still count under BLP policy) and POV issues need addressed asap. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  20:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows Notable Neutral information with Reliable Sources, and there are sufficient Notable & Widely reported information that goes beyond the scope of the death. Anyway that will be decided above in the Request for move section, so no point discussing it again here. RogerYg (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for Inclusion of Bipartisan Sources

I noticed that the article heavily relies on Canadian sources. While Canadian media outlets are undoubtedly credible, I believe that it is essential to maintain a balanced perspective by including sources that are neutral and bipartisan. 103.82.125.16 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The article currently includes sourcing from American, British, Canadian and Indian based news agencies. If there are other WP:RS covering this topic that you believe should be referenced or included, I encourage you to add them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Because the page is under semi-protection, if you have changes/sources you would like added, please make an edit request. Wikipedia:Edit Request Wizard/Protected can help you make the request, if needed. Thanks! ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 20:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Support. We have plenty of reliable Indian sources on the subject, but they've not been added to this article at all, it's a borderline NPOV violation. LΞVIXIUS💬 17:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected Edit Request

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

−

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly expelled a diplomat whom she described as the head of India’s intelligence agency in Canada. India's foreign ministry rejected the allegation, calling it "absurd" and politically motivated

+

Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mélanie Joly expelled a diplomat whom she described as the head of India’s intelligence agency in Canada. India's foreign ministry rejected the allegation, calling it "absurd" and politically motivated and in response, expelled a senior Canadian diplomat by asking him to leave the country in 5 days

• Why it should be changed:

[6] is the citation from CNN whose title highlights expulsion of Canadian diplomat by India. Although the preceding text talks about Canadian expulsion of Indian diplomat,it doesn't talk about Indian expulsion of Canadian diplomat. I believe both are very important events to add at the same place. Either both expulsions be added or none of them. Both carry equal weightage.

• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Vajrasuchika (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I got it Thankyou! I'm not a frequent editor and didn't know that I could edit the page. Thanks for acting on the edit request. I'll remove the next edit request too. Vajrasuchika (talk) 04:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It needs a new section for "The Killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar"

. JohnnyPedro1998 (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The section already exists. 🔥Jalapeño🔥 12:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

See the move discussion above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Add new "reaction" section

Add reaction like

Canada

• Liberal goverment politicians statement
• Opposition (Conservative) politicians statement

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/poilievre-trudeau-hardeep-singh-nijjar https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservatives-india-nijjar-politics-1.6973050 https://www.bcunitedcaucus.ca/2023/09/statement-from-kevin-falcon-on-the-assassination-of-hardeep-singh-nijjar/

India

• politicians statement

International

• USA
• Uk, Australia, China etc

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/21/why-canada-lacks-allies-support-on-claim-india-killed-hardeep-singh-nijjar 150.129.164.197 (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 17:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Feldercarb can you add this? 103.251.217.210 (talk) 17:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I do think this merits consideration, though I agree it's unclear what exactly the poster is asking for. I suspect they are suggesting that additional responses to the controversy be sorted by nation--for example, the United States has stated that it is "concerned" and it has reportedly spoken in-depth on this subject with Canada through the Five Eyes organization. This is relevant to the controversy, but not necessarily to this page, since the US has not spoken directly about Mr. Singh Nijjar.TarnishedSteel (talk) 00:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There is already a Fallout Section, where such content with WP:RS can be added RogerYg (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Split content to Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar

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.

---

I am seeking consensus to split content related to the killing of the article's subject and aftermath including diplomatic incident to a separate article titled Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar. His death has become a notable occurance due to the "unprecedented diplomatic row" (CNN) between Canada and India and splitting would foster further expansion of this content. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

(Speedy Oppose) Why are you asking for move even though moment ago your consensus failed. 150.129.164.197 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

A) I'm not. B) That discussion was shut down early (two days, really?) due to this article appearing on the main page. Rather than challenge the close (which would be futile), and in the face of editors asserting the subjects notability outside of his death, I am proposing a article split instead. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it needs stand-alone page. This article is very small compared to articles like Osama bin Laden & i don't think so even in future it can cross size of it. 103.251.217.210 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The discussion is closed above and there is no reason why it should be split again. Davidindia (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy Oppose No basis for having two articles on the topic, it is clearly not justified by length or weight and would result in significant duplication. Reywas92^Talk 16:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

  The basis is that multiple editors above feel that a biography about this subject can be expanded; if so, there is justification for a separate article on the clearly notable diplomatic incident that is occurring. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: The above request was a move request, a request to move (and partially rescope) this article. This is a split request, a request to turn this article into two. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 17:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is only a few paragraphs long (it's just 20K). It certainly doesn't need splitting in two. If it becomes so big as to require that in the future, then this discussion can be revisited. Black Kite (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose splitting would not "foster further expansion of this content", it would "foster the creation of two duplicate articles on the same topic". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 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.

I have redirected 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis here. Almost the entirety of that page was a copy-and-paste WP:REDUNDANT WP:DUPLICATE of this main article, and the split was rejected above for this exact reason. It's wildly inappropriate to give readers two related articles that have exactly the same content just organized slightly differently. This much overlap can be confusing and lead to inconsistencies, and different changes on each page makes it hard for readers to read both pages to get the full picture because they see the same things twice. A split must be a split with appropriate WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, but when the information is not actually that long as in here, that's hard to do and just results in unnecessary duplication. Reywas92^Talk 14:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Canadian PM Trudeau statement

As per WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability & WP:NPOV, we would need to at least partly quote PM Trudeau.

1. On 18 September 2023, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that Canadian Intelligence agencies were "pursuing credible allegations of a potential link" between Indian government agents to the assassination of Nijjar.

It is almost impossible to arrive at WP:NPOV consensus on Neutrality of a parapharsing such as Unique and Controversial statement, and hence quote is required RogerYg (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 22 § Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar until a consensus is reached. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Split content to 2023 India-Canada diplomatic crisis

The page was created and was split for "being a copy of Hardeep Singh Nijjar" Even though it was very different from it in many ways. Lukt64 (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON. It's too early to tell if the diplomatic row will become independently notable to the point that it's better covered in a separate article. Immediately proximate details of the dispute (travel restrictions, recalled diplomats) can be covered just fine at this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Speedy oppose Practially every sentence of that was a word-for-word copy-and-paste from this article. There needs to more content to warrant a split, otherwise it will still be heavily duplicative and a disservice to readers. It's perfectly fine to cover everything in one article for now. Reywas92^Talk 20:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose and speedy close per above. Nearly every ounce of content on that page was copied and pasted directly from this one; virtually none of it was “very different in many ways” as you claim. WP:DUPLICATE applies, as do the other suggestions above. The Kip 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note that the editor in question is still trying to get this split off via Draft:2023 India-Canada Tensions. Are we approaching the point of WP:NOTGETTINGIT? The Kip 21:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  The draft was done before it. Lukt64 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• SUPPORT Spliting into separate Indo-Canadian article, as a lot of diplomatic events have happened that are widely covered in Indian & International media, and it justifies separate page. It is no longer WP:TOOSOON. This article has become too long its SCOPE cannot be widened to include all diplomatic events & dispute (visa service suspension, travel restrictions, New details) can No longer covered in this article. RogerYg (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It's been a day since the last split discussion. There's no rush or deadline; how about we discuss in 6 months. VQuakr (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support The diplomatic crisis is an event in and of itself, and has taken broader significance than the killing of Nijjar. Narayansg (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose as just a distraction given the current scope of the content here and just a potential invitation to have sloppily added and edited material about a current event proliferated across two pages instead of one. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Key Information in the Lead: TALK before deletion

I think many Wiki editors have worked and gained some reasonable consensus on Key essential information in the lead. As per WP:RS and WP:Neutrality, the current lead includes key information from Sikh Separatists & Western media, as also from Indian sources & Indian authorities with WP:RS sources and WP:NPOV

1. From the Sikh Separatists & Western media, the WP:RS mentions key essentials as : "Canadian Sikh separatist leader", Khalistan movement, Sikh independence advocate, leader of Guru Nanak Sikh Gurudwara in Surrey, British Columbia, Sikh For Justice (SFJ)
2. From the Indian sources & Indian authorities side, the key essential detaills as per WP:RS sources are mention of "Khalistan Tiger Force", Interpol issued arrest warrant, and "designated terrorist" under India's Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act

Before removing any key item from lead, as per WP:TALK, it should be discussed on TALK page.RogerYg (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO, Khalistan Tiger Force has enough RS in support that it can be stated in wikivoice. Terrorist should be stated only as an allegation from the Indian Government.

"Sikh Independence activist" and "Canadian Sikh Separatist leader" can also be stated in wikivoice. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the KTF is designated a terrorist organisation by India, stating that he is a leader of it is effectively is stating that he is a terrorist in wikivoice. Since all the allegations that this is the case stem from the Indian Government, it's the same thing. Black Kite (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesnt say that he is a terrorist - It says that he is designated as a terrorist by India. Our (wikipedia) description of KTF is a militant org, not a terrorist one, as that is the Indian POV.

Also, not as a reply to you, but for some other editors, would encourage them to read TP first - One editor removes sources citing overcite, other editor says insufficient sources and deletes. Atleast see TP instead of warring in edit summaries. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with you. Important to discuss on TP before removing content, sources or key elements from lead. Also for adding major/controversial new information in lead RogerYg (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Some editors tried to mention Nijjar as "Human rights activist", but it is not WP:Notable for mention in Lead. Also, it does not pas WP:NPOV as none of Indian or Neutral sources mention him as a Human rights activist. Further, it appears to be an attempt at Wikipedia:Wikipuffery, so I think it should not be in the lead. RogerYg (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• "Many Sikh organizations" instead of "Sikh organizations", as it inaccurately suggests all Sikh orgs view Nijjar as activist while none of Indian Sikh orgs have supported such claim, only Canadian Sikh orgs.RogerYg (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Also, CONFLICTING LEGACIES of Nijjar are a Key element from WP:RS sources, and it should therefore be reflected in the lead. See "Murder at the temple: The conflicting legacies of a B.C. Sikh leader" https://globalnews.ca/news/9784316/hardeep-singh-nijjar-death-surrey-b-c/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerYg (talk • contribs) 02:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:ONUS, and claiming a terrorist affiliation in Wikivoice

As Black Kite (talk · contribs) mentioned above, we absolutely may not state in Wikivoice that Nijjar was the "leader" of the Khalistan Tiger Force. The best sources are very clear that this assertion is the allegation of the Indian government. We should note the Indian government's characterization, of course, but cannot present it in Wikivoice either in the infobox or the text.

WP:BLP applies to the recently deceased, and WP:ONUS applies everywhere. Neutrality^talk 15:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

100% agree. A contentious label like this must be attributed not in Wikivoice. VQuakr (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The Wire is quite credible, and it states it directly. So does the Hindu. Many others as well. Certain news organisations being too apprehensive can be easily chalked up to lack of in depth knowledge and experience of the topic - Most of the reports here read more like tabloid put-togethers than news pieces and analysis.

BLP isnt being violated, multiple RS state he is the leader without the string of attributions. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There is high conformity among RSP, e.g. [7], [8], that this is absolutely a (specifically 2020) Indian government claim or allegation. As the NYT then goes on to note: "In Punjab, however, politicians and journalists asserted that despite such charges against him, many locals had never heard of him or his movement." Iskandar323 (talk) 21:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Captain Jack: That is exactly the inverse of how BLP (and, more generally, all editing) works. Where sources make different characterizations, we do not immediately go to the most aggressive characterization and default to the most intense, unrestrained description. Rather, we look to the highest-quality sources, considering quality, recency, consistency, and importance. As others have noted here, the best sources – AP, Reuters, NYT, AFP, and so forth — are the model. And reliance on the highest-quality sources (yes, those "most apprehensive" about making characterizations) is more important. This is all the more important given declines in India's rating in the World Press Freedom Index since 2014. Neutrality^talk 21:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Again, ratings are not the standard at Wikipedia, and if you do actually spend time to read into them they indicate less than nothing.

When we have a bunch of RS saying he was the leader, and a bunch saying Indian government said he was the leader, they are not in conflict. One side simply chooses not to commit to something they are unsure of. There is no conflict here with regards to the characterisations. There is no reason to discredit The Wire and Hindu, who are, if anything, almost always more critical of the Indian government than a fair analysis would dictate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No-one is discrediting them. They are merely pointing out that they are repeating an Indian Government claim, unless there is evidence to the contrary. Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, the editor vaguely pointed towards "press index" rankings and such, presumably to imply that the media was not free and doing this out of fear or something. That would be along the lines of trying to discredit them.

I am pointing out that media houses that rarely report on the matter have stated it as a claim of the Indian govt (which is absolutely true, the indian government does claim he is the leader), while reliable media houses that have more experience of reporting in this area refer directly to him as the leader, without the need to add that its the Indian govt POV. As such, to state that in wikivoice is neither wrong nor in conflict with the sources. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. We can quote the media reporting it or attribute it to the Indian gov't; we don't report it as fact. VQuakr (talk) 09:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

When large number of RS do it, we cant (and shouldnt) list out half a dozen sources individually. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

All of those "RS" are parroting an Indian Government claim. Unless there is any independent reporting backing up this "fact", we cannot report it in Wikivoice. Black Kite (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

They are supporting the claim, yes. How does it make it not due? What standard are you looking to meet when you say "independent reporting"? I see independent sources unreservedly referring to him as the leader, why it an issue? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not what I said. VQuakr (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Ahh. So something like "Indian media reports stated that Nijjar was the leader of the Khalistan Tiger Force"?.m I had initially thought you meant attribute to the publication itself. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's what we're talking about when we mention "wikivoice". VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Any Changes to the "First sentence" should be Discussed

The current first sentence has been stable with some reasonable consensus on WP:NPOV & WP:RS

• Hardeep Singh Nijjar (11 October 1977 – 18 June 2023) was an Indian-born Canadian Sikh separatist leader involved with the Khalistan movement.

Any changes to the first sentence should be discussed here on TALK page as per WP:TALK. RogerYg (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The current wording might be interpreted to imply that Nijjar was in favour of Sikh separatism from Canada. I corrected this a few days ago, but the article has gone through several revisions since then.

I prefer a more precise formulation:

Hardeep Singh Nijjar (11 October 1977 – 18 June 2023) was an Indian-born Canadian leader in the Indian-separatist Khalistan movement.

Thoughts? Riposte97 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

You raise a valid point, and I support that there needs to be a mention of Khalistan in first sentence, but your sentence wording Indian-separarist is also confusing.

Instead of "involved with Khalistan Movement", we may mention "advocate for Khalistan, an independent Sikh state out of India."

But we need more consensus to make that change RogerYg (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 September 2023

Change "and in 2014 an Interpol arrest warrant was issued against him." to "and in 2014 India issued an international arrest warrant against him through Interpol." Because otherwise people may misunderstand that Interpol as an apparent independent agency did so.

Remove "As of September 2023, Canada has not provided any evidence linking the Indian government to Nijjar's death." It goes against neutrality by taking the side of the Indian government and repeating their talking point. There is due process in Canada and evidence from ongoing investigations aren't publicized especially not when it involves foreign intelligence operations.

Replace the above sentence with, "Canada was informed with the help of intelligence inputs from its Five Eyes partnership prior to Trudeau going public with it." This has been confirmed by the US ambassador and is a far more meaningful piece of information. Oli the Orange (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Pretty contentious right now. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 21:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request is inaccurate. INTERPOL is an independent International Agency, it's not under the Indian Government. Such edit request without WP:RS needs to be rejected. RogerYg (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This edit request has already been declined. No need for a restatement of rejection. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:ONUS, redundancy, and the 2nd paragraph lead section

I've reverted this attempt to expand the lead section. It's redundant, it implicates BLP, it doesn't conform with the sources, and it's just purely badly written. RogerYg, you must stop.

• "Indian authorities alleged that Nijjar had been involved in multiple criminal cases" - doesn't make sense, and poorly written. This is already covered by the previous text: "Indian government accused him of being a criminal and terrorist affiliated with the militant Khalistan Tiger Force, and sought his arrest...."
• "in 2014 an Interpol arrest warrant was issued against him" - weasel passive voice, and redundant to "India ... sought his arrest." It was India who issued the Interpol red notice. There were also two notices, one in 2014 and one later on. Again, this detail is covered in the body, in detail, and does not need to be in the lead.
• "Many Sikh organizations viewed Nijjar as a Sikh independence advocate" - again, a badly written sentence. This is purely redundant to the first sentence ("a Canadian Sikh separatist leader involved with the Khalistan movement...").
• Removal of first part of the sentence: "Sikh organizations viewed Nijjar as a human rights activist, while the Indian government accused him of being a criminal and terrorist...": I don't understand this removal. This is exactly what the Associated Press says: "Nijjar .... was called a human rights activist by Sikh organizations and a criminal by India’s government."

--Neutrality^talk 15:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, this needs to stop or there will inevitably be a WP:AE issue, as this article is covered by ARBIPA. Black Kite (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  HI Neutrality^talk. Your changes to the lead removed some key info such as Interpol warrants, and these were made without TALK page consensus. I accept some of the changes. We need more discussion to get a WP:NPOV lead.

  Hi Black Kite (talk), I was giving logical WP based reasons and inviting for Discussion on TALK page as per WP:TALK. I would request avoiding to Intimidate other editors who are trying to find WP:NPOV consensus, as it may be viewed as WikiBullying RogerYg (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Again, I have accepted most of your changes for now, until more discussion. But the last sentence, has undue repetition of peaceful, which I have trimmed as it appears WP:PUFFERY for a person, whom many WP:RS Canadian sources that show him flaunting an assault rifle, AK-47. See below ( https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/surrey-man-accused-on-running-terror-camp-near-mission)

  Also, Khalistan needs to mentioned atleast once in the lead (not just Khalistan movement, which seems to hide the main issue of Khalistan as per WP:Notability. I hope we can have a decent discussion instead of engaging in WikiBullying. I assume Good faith & avoid any personal attacks. It's about making the article WP:NPOV and balanced RogerYg (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Neutrality The point you made about "It was India who issued the Interpol red notice" is inaccurate. It is Interpol that issued these notices. India can only make requests to Interpol, and then Interpol decides whether to issue these International arrest warrants. See Interpol notice. Russia has requested many Interpol warrants, but those have been often been rejected by Interpol. RogerYg (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a valid point. Agree with you. An INTERPOL Red Notice is like a global "wanted" poster. It helps countries find and temporarily arrest people wanted for extradition. But here's the kicker: INTERPOL can say "no" if a request doesn't play by their rules. Wrythemann (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Wrythemann (talk), and since INTERPOL is an independent International agency, and it's a key element in this article, it needs to restored in the lead. RogerYg (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  RogerYg, your latest set of edits again appears to be trying to push the article towards one POV, i.e. insinuation that the subject was involved in terrorism-related issues and removing mention of the Indian's government previous actions towards Sikh activists abroad, which is obviously relevant context. I have only reverted one edit so far (the latter), but please consider NPOV in your editing. Black Kite (talk) 07:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is something I've seen in the article and TP repeatedly, and seems quite inaccurate. I think it stems from the frequent conflation of Khalistan with Sikh people in general by some western sources. Indian government has frequently taken action against Khalistani activists, but not targeted at Sikh activists. There is a big difference there, in both motives and sincerity. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  There do, however, appear to be a lot of Western sources saying this (i.e. [9] [10]; they just don't mention the word "Khalistan" (i.e. the latter "For decades, some Sikhs have called for the creation of an independent homeland, which would be carved out of Punjab. The movement has long been opposed by the Indian government, which considers it treasonous.") I think the two are generally synonymous in these cases, though. Black Kite (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  No. Sikh Organisations =/= Khalistani Organisations. Khalistan is a ridiculous minority movement among Sikhs, and even among overseas Sikhs. To refer to them as such would a be quite a mischaracterisation. And the section you quoted, "For decades, some Sikhs have called for the creation of an independent homeland, which would be carved out of Punjab", is the newspaper basically describing the Khalistan movement instead of using the word. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that's my point. Western sources know their readers won't understand the term Khalistan, so they describe it instead. However, this does lead to them describing those in favour of Khalistan as "Sikh activists", which - to be fair - isn't actually wrong, but gives the impression that "Sikh activist" = "Khalistan supporter", which isn't. However, the example which RogerYg removed isn't factually wrong, and it definitely isn't UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 11:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I am trying to make the article balanced and WP:NPOV giving both sides of the story, as Nijjar has a very conflicting legacy as noted in WP:RS sources. I am giving the reasons for any edit; and it can be discussed here. But, I am doing in good faith.RogerYg (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Name put on the US no-fly list in 2019

Should we include this bit in the article? Not sure how reliable the Economic Times is though. [11] Wrythemann (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• It's a reasonably reliable source - certainly doesn't appear to be a Govt. mouthpiece. But I'm unconvinced that "sources say" is good enough. What sources? Black Kite (talk) 21:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  PM Modi, lmao.

  On a serious note, I think the "source" is the no fly list leak in Jan 2023. But that's just my conjecture. Wrythemann (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• We definitely should not include this. Note that - even if the leaked list is actually accurate - there's no guarantee that the person of that name is the same as the subject of this article. No-fly lists are replete with duplicated names or names shared by many people. Neutrality^talk 00:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thats his conjecture. IG economic Times is reliable enough for the claim to be included with an attribution to them. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  There are multiple Canadian & Indian sources that mention this exact person, Nijjar was placed on NO FLY LIST, and it is WP:NOTABLE information that must be placed with WP:RS. I am collecting the WP:RS sources for the same. RogerYg (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  @RogerYg: I believe you're misquoting WP:NOTABLE. As it says at the top of the page: The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think he meant WP:DUE, which would support the argument. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 13:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yea, that would make more sense. I think we should only include it if more sources are found. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:26, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Which Canadian sources are you referring to? Neutrality^talk 18:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Revert

Neutrality, can you explain this edit [12] which removed a signifcant chunk of details from the India Today article? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I did explain it, in my edit summary. In addition to being inaccurate in parts (an Interpol red notice is not an international arrest warrant) and omitting proper ref placement (some of this new content was stuck in sentences without a cite to the India Today ref), I think it is flagrantly undue weight, and BLP-implicating, to including so many details cited solely to a "a dossier prepared by Indian intelligence agencies whose details were exclusively accessed by India Today TV." This, at the very least, requires more and better sourcing. Neutrality^talk 22:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's undue to expound on what Indian intelligence agencies have written about Nijjar in a section titled "Indian allegations of militant activities". Isn't the whole point of this section to eloborate on the Indian POV? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• We already contain that, in elaborate detail. The increasingly lurid accusations are undue. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Regardless of how you characterise the allegations, it is abundantly clear that the section on Indian allegation should actually go into detail about Indian allegations. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Good removal. Multiple tone and content issues, MOS:CLAIM, "pursued Nijjar's involvement" is problematic, guilt by association claims re "assassin". Being in a section on Indian allegations doesn't give carte blanche to ignore our policies. VQuakr (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

Please add, "The US, UK, Australia and New Zealand have all stopped short of full throated support with respect to the allegations of Trudeau" in the "Canada" subsubsection of the "Diplomatic fallout" subsection of the "Death and subsequent diplomatic dispute" section. 2406:7400:98:C6A9:2D:5B7E:8645:BF45 (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Already somewhat present: 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. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 12:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2023 (2)

"and offered a reward of ₹1,000,000 (approximately CA$16,200)"

it should be CA$162,000 Mark4pro (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Google shows it's correct as it is. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)