Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024

Most wanted Terrorist declared By India 2405:201:681C:A91F:6EDC:CCCE:E06F:AA4E (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done per MOS:LABEL. Black Kite (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Canadian media reports section

I'm wondering if this section's size is a little UNDUE being based on one source. Some of the claims read a little like they're in WikiVoice as well, as opposed to claims being made in the news report. Black Kite (talk) 08:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's undue because it brings important information from WP:RS Canadian sources. Also, the same details were previously reported in multiple WP:RS Indian sources, but previously on this page, even highly reliable WP:RS sources such as Indian Express, NDTV, and Deccan Herald were referred to as unreliable "Indian media reports" or "Indian allegations". Therefore, it becomes important for balanced WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to have a section with critical reporting from Canadian media. Also, it is no longer single source, as citations have been added from "Globe & Mail". but also from National Post and CBC. Going forward more sources can be added. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The article maintains numerous NPOV issues, among which is the size of this section. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a valid criticism, but a section of this kind was well overdue, and we're much better off retaining this section at this length than withholding vital recent developments, information, and context from readers. To Roger's point, this issue will likely rectify itself as more news outlets will inevitably cover these details. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

We don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball to make that determination, though. Certainly we can incorporate the Globe and Mail reporting in the "Indian allegations..." section in a much more concise way, without nearly doubling the amount of text and creating an entire subsection. At the moment, this makes it far too unbalanced. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should retain this "Canadian" section, because the "Indian allegation" section was created specifically for reporting from Indian media reports, wherein it was implied that Indian sources are biased. Now in 2024, we have In-depth critical reports from Globe & Mail and other Canadian sources, so it is important to report that accordingly. We can rename it as "2024 Canadian media reports" to be more specific. We may also reduce some details from Globe & Mail, and add from other Canadian sources, which are now providing critical details on this matter. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It reads in wiki-voice like the section is for Indian government allegations, not Indian media allegations. Therefore, adding a "Canadian media reports" sections skews the article into making it read like the Canadian media is corroborating the Indian government allegations. The solution to this is to be concise and coalesce the reporting into a single "Indian government allegations" section. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be incorrect to label Canadian media reports as "Indian government allegations", as these reports are based on Investigative journalism by Canadian journalists. These are not Indian government allegations, so they should not be added to that section. If you see the discussion regarding Indian allegations section, that was created specifically to separate Indian media reports as some editors considered them potentially biased. We can rename as "Canadian Investigative media claims" RogerYg (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

They are all allegations. They should be in a single section about the allegations. I was making an edit while you made this reply that removed duplicate information because it was in both of the sections. There is no need for a second section on these allegations. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  05:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I am fine with Allegations section, as long as we don't call the section - Indian allegations. RogerYg (talk) 06:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Image of Nijjar brandishing a rifle

I do not wish to ruffle any feathers, but I'm wondering if we could add the image of Nijjar brandishing an AK-47 to the article given that both the Indian and now Canadian media have reported that Nijjar was indeed in contact with militant figures in Pakistan. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Well yes, I think it's relevant and has been reported by WP:RS sources. But, we can add it only if you find such relevant image with a Creative Commons CC BY license." Currently, I don't see such image in Wiki commmons. RogerYg (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Only CC image of H.S. Nijjar in Wiki commons is

Hardeep Singh Nijjar in 2020

RogerYg (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the fact that Canadian sources have "reported" this absolutely does not include an image like that, even if one was available, as it is simple WP:SYNTHESIS. Being "in contact with militants" does NOT equal what an image like that is trying to synthesize. This article has enough people editing it trying to prove Nijjar's association with terrorism without stuff like that as well. We need less POV editing here, not more. Black Kite (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The image of Nijjar brandishing the AK-47 is in the recent Globe report, the image was included in the context of Nijjar visiting Pakistan and being in contact with a Sikh militant (Tara) who admitted to killing Punjab's CM and more than a dozen innocent bystanders and spearheaded various militant groups; the Globe also bolstered claims that Nijjar was using firearms in Canada, so I'd have to respectfully disagree with your argument, but nevertheless, the image is copyrighted as far as I can tell. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Globe report literally says "Mr. Nijjar, in the red shirt, spent time in the 2010s with the Sikh militant Jagtar Singh Tara, in the striped shirt, on a trip to Asia where he also carried an AK-47." in the caption below the image. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes Global & Mail report below includes a picture of H.S. Nijjar holding an AK-47:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-a-year-after-hardeep-singh-nijjars-death-mysteries-remain-about-how-he/

''Mr. Nijjar, in the red shirt, spent time in the 2010s with the Sikh militant Jagtar Singh Tara, in the striped shirt, on a trip to Asia where he also carried an AK-47'' . RogerYg (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

But, i would broadly agree with Black Kite (talk) that it may not be a good idea to include such image per WP:SYNTHESIS. RogerYg (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes - there has been enough disruptive editing of this article in the past to suggest that Nijjar was a terrorist (without any reliable sources) that we really don't need people trying to do it any further. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

change in lede of the article

The below paragraph should be mentioned in the diplomatic-fallout section. And this paragraph should also be rephrased India says it withdrew the diplomats while Canada says it expelled them either way this was a tit for tat move and that should reflect in the paragraph. This below paragraph gives undue weightage to Canadian and US sources and it seems to me that there has been an active effort to dismiss Indian sources in this whole article. All of this ought to be corrected Wikipedia isn't an mouthpiece of any government around the world but this article makes it seem otherwise.

In October 2024, India withdrew their High Commissioner to Canada Sanjay Kumar Verma and 5 other diplomats and expelled 6 Canadian diplomats from new Delhi including Canadian High Commissioner to India Stewart Ross Wheeler . This occurred after Canada told Indian officials that they wanted to name those Indian diplomats as persons of interest in the murder investigation. Canada also said they provided India with "irrefutable evidence" of links between Indian government agents and the murders of both Nijjar and of Sukhdool Singh, who was shot in Winnipeg on 20 September 2023; Canadian officals say that the six officials were "directly involved in gathering detailed intelligence on Sikh separatists who were then killed, attacked or threatened by India’s criminal proxies"

DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the lead needs to be rewritten and that the highlighted paragraph about a diplomatic row is undue weight for the lead section of a BLP article. In fact, I feel more strongly than ever that either the scope of this article needs to change, or that content regarding the diplomatic row should be split.

I disagree that there is a pro-North American bias here, though. If anything, I would counterargue that there has been pro-Indian bias in here in the past and I have worked with other editors to address that. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

That source also says "...it was requested that India waive diplomatic immunity for six individuals based on Canada so as to be able to question them as part of the RCMP investigation. Regrettably, as India did not agree and given the ongoing public safety concerns for Canadians, Canada served notices of expulsions to six diplomats and consular officials early this morning" (i.e. the source contradicts itself). However, I don't think we can say "India withdrew" their diplomats, unless we are claiming it was a complete coincidence after Canada issued them with notices of expulsion. Black Kite (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The Indian ministry issued a press note and tweeted about it on 14 October 16:15 UTC [[1]], while the Canadian Global Affairs handle tweeted about it at 14 October 18:30 UTC[[2]]. However, Western media used the local time of both countries for comparison and incorrectly concluded that Canada expelled Indian diplomats. It needs to be fixed; otherwise, it is completely biased towards Anglosphere countries. राजकुमार^(talk) 13:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)