This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
- 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)
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)
- @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. DSP2092talk 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)
- Does that have any special meaning, for a Sikh to die this way? Senorangel (talk) 03:45, 14 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)
- Option A - The first line should describe, in a concise manner, the fundamental identity of the topic. Much of Nijjar's life, the accusations against him, his activism, his fame and notoriety, and indeed his death, revolved around the fact that he was a vocal activist for Khalistan. While he was also the head of a gurdwara, he was not notable for being the head of the Gurdwara - And his notability far precedes his assassination.While these details can (and should) be covered in the lead, they are not fundamental to his identity and thus extraneous to the first line. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- What sources do you recommend to determine his notability prior to this? Most of the coverage we have right now began after his killing. Senorangel (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Recent coverage, of course, will focus on his killing. However, there are several articles prior to his death regarding his involvement with the Khalistan movement [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]IG these should be enough to show notability as they are much older than the assassination, but if you want more I would be happy to supply. The recent coverage focusing more on his death is a matter of recentism. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- Option A - This one is obvious. Option B is out because him being a leader of a gurdwara isn't important and Option C is out because it leaves out that he was Canadian. Even worse is some people trying to add into the first sentence that he was a terrorist even though there is no legitimate sources to support such claim. Ergzay (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Do not add back in content that claims that Hardeep was a terrorist in leed
@CapnJackSp Stop adding back in content that claims Hardeep was a terrorist. Additionally you're using extremely biased sources (Indian nationalist media) without specifying their bias. Ergzay (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Additionally you cannot write that "none condemned India" as that is blatantly false. The US condemned India for the attack and told India to cooperate with Canada in the investigation into the attack. Additionally the evidence for the attack came from the US. Ergzay (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
It is true that Nijjar was designated as a terrorist by the Indian government. Regardless of how you feel about the appropriateness of this label, he was indeed deemed a terrorist and the government of India sought his extradition. It is common in Wikipedia to include the term "designated terrorist" with attribution to the entities and nations that consider them to be one.- Osama Bin Laden-
his group is designated as a terrorist group by the United Nations Security Council, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi-ISIL was designated as a terrorist organisation by the United Nations and almost all sovereign states, and Baghdadi was individually considered a terrorist by the United States and many other countries.
Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2023 (UTC)- Was the subject of this article designated by any other government or transnational organization except the government of India? We are not discussing WP:OTHERSTUFF; we are discussing Hardeep Singh Nijjar. It is very much a non-neutral point-of-view if it is only the government of India (which has been implicated in his killing) which makes this claim, and it is troubling that several editors are trying to keep this POV in the article with such WP:WEIGHT. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how that's pertinent when we're going to add attribution and specify that it is only the Government of India's claims. By not including it, we are, in my opinion, improperly omitting necessary information, contrary to WP:NOTCENSORED. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- The lede only said he was a "designated terrorist" which is not true as it removes the claim that it's only a claim of the Indian government who doesn't have jurisdiction over the man as he is Canadian and it doesn't belong in the first line in the first place. And no, it is not "common in Wikipedia to include the term "designated terrorist"". I've never even seen that term before used in articles. "designated as a terrorist" is something different, which is not what was used. And as you can see even for Osama Bin Laden it's not even him that is "designated". Organizations get designations. Ergzay (talk) 03:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the wording was improper and it should have been something along the lines ofThe 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)
- 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 have removed the "designated terrorist" temporarily till this discussion concludes, since it was a recent addition. Pinging @Levixius who added it. IMO it is a correct descriptor as he was, indeed, designated as a terrorist. I dont buy your argument that it is a "false" descriptor, since it is widely reported in RS as well.The rest of your claims are not true at all. NDTV being labelled "Indian Nationalist media" is laughable. And your assertion that
The US condemned India for the attack
is untrue - I would request you to provide the statement where the US government "condemned India". Asking to cooperate in investigation to find the truth does not amount to "condemnation". Indeed, if you bother to read the source, The Washington post noted that Canada had tried to pressure its allies to condemn India and failed to get such a response. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)- Again, was he designated by any other government besides India or countries in India's direct sphere of influence? If not, it is WP:UNDUE to include this claim in the lead. It should be removed permanently. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- First off, unless you have any valid objections to make with regards to the material, I ask you to self revert your edit that goes against WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD. The longstanding material was removed under the false claim that it was untrue, while ignoring the citations that stated exactly what the text said.Im not particularly strong on whether specifying him as a designated terrorist is due for the first line or not, but your wholesale removal of sourced and obviously relevant information is extremely inappropriate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- The citations used were from low quality Indian nationalist sources which is basically the worst type of source to use for this article. There are too many of those in this article and need to get pruned out or possibly inserted with "X paper claims that..." etc. To be more explicit, you cannot say "None condemned India for its alleged involvement" when that is not what unbiased sources say. They say things like "Canada has received muted support", in other words most support Canada but the support isn't what Canada wanted. Ergzay (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- @CapnJackSp: Respectfully, I will not. Per WP:ONUS, content, even if verified, can be challenged and removed and should not be restored until such content dispute is settled with a consensus to include. The question here is on the reliability of the sources/attributing potentially biased sources/misappropriation of sources, so this material isn't even properly verified. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- Since you both are repeatedly making vague statements of doubt, lets go point by point. The only claim put forth is "poor sourcing" or "Indian Nationalist media" for the removal of multiple sourced statements. I hope, then, that you will not consider Al-Jazeera or CNN to be "Indian Nationalist media".Al Jazeera and CNN state both things which were removed by you two - [6] and [7]CNN states
Canadian police have not arrested anyone in connection with Nijjar’s murder.
Al Jazeera states,Canada has yet to provide any evidence of India’s involvement in the killing.
None of Canada’s most important allies – not the US, the United Kingdom, Australia or New Zealand, all knitted tightly together in the “Five Eyes” intelligence-sharing alliance – echoed Trudeau’s allegations. They have declared their concern and urged full investigations. But none has stepped up to condemn India for its alleged involvement in the June slaying on Canadian soil of Sikh separatist, Hardeep Singh Nijjar..
Our article was statingAs 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 saysciting the need to protect sensitive intelligence sources and methods.
which I believe should be included if we are to keep this point in the lead section. - Furthermore, I propose this wording tweak for the other piece of challenged content.
Canada's Five Eyes allies, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, expressed their concern and encouraged India to collaborate in the ongoing investigation, but have not condemned India for its alleged involvement.
- The wording at present shows all citations ties to the sentence "None condemned India..." and none to the sentence "Canada's Five Eyes allies,.." and this would correct that. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you just quote "Canadian police have not arrested anyone in connection with Nijjar’s murder." then it's a form of WP:CHERRYPICKING. It pushes the narrative that Canada is basically making things up which is the common position in Indian nationalist media. I am fine with those two sources but you need to include the context from those sources. Also that Wikipedia wording you included is acceptable (though I would tweak it) but is definitely NOT what was in the page. Ergzay (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- A reply to both of you - I agree that merging those two sentences for citation clarity is fine, but stuffing the lead with justifications and clarifications as provided by the Canadian government is not WP:NPOV (those clarifications and claims can, however, be placed in the body if they are not there already). If we were to present viewpoints of officials, then Indian officials have specified that the Canadian government shared no actionable information at all, which is different from not sharing evidence. I have modified the text accordingly, with a trivial change in terminology for the sentence merge as well. Also, I dont understand the line
Also that Wikipedia wording you included is acceptable (though I would tweak it) but is definitely NOT what was in the page
, could you clarify that? As far as I can see, it matches the wording that was there exactly. [8] Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)- They were there already, and it is essential context, especially when we are giving it the substantive amount of WEIGHT that we are by placing it in the lead. The lead should include all relevant points that contribute to summarizing the prose, so I'm not worried about "stuffing" it with useful clarifications. Also, when you reverted us today, you added a the same citation twice in your next edit. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is obvious that the Canadian government, if asked about it, will downplay it. It is also true that the Indian government, if asked about it, will drone on about it (as the high commissioner did to the globe and mail). The point is, The Canadian Government has 1) Not made any arrests, and 2)Pointedly refused to talk about releasing any evidence (which, contrary to their claims, safely can and should actually be released when making allegations as serious as these - See the Turkish allegations against the Saudis). And when we insert the Canadian government's point-of-view after every line critical of them, I do think it is "stuffing" the lead.The material added was also misleading - "Investigating three suspects" written without context seems like they have found 3 individuals possibly linked to the murder, when in reality they have only discovered that there were 3 attackers (which they haven't identified or gotten a list of suspects of, as far as I can see in RS).PS: Again, I also did not understand
They were there already
, what was where already? And I have removed the extra cite, thanks for pointing it out. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)- This is now off topic, but I'd argue they very much cannot release the direct evidence, and the added clarifications reinforce that. This is a standard thing for intelligence where you don't publicly reveal the details of the intelligence. The point for this type of thing is not to win in the court of public opinion, the point is to let your enemy know that you know. If you reveal the precise intelligence you point out your sources, possibly exposing/endangering them, or encourage them to stop talking to you. For example the actual source may be an official inside the Indian government who's acting on behalf of the Canadian government. So no it is not the case that the intelligence "safely can and should actually be released", and even if it could be, that's not for us Wikipedia editors to decide if it safely or cannot safely be released. Ergzay (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- When making allegations publicly, you cannot avoid scrutiny of your claims by the public. That the Canadian government claims they cant release information is their claim, but we know that others have, indeed, released information publicly in similar cases, therefore we must take their claim to be their opinion and not fact. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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, 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)
- 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
- 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
- Since you both are repeatedly making vague statements of doubt, lets go point by point. The only claim put forth is "poor sourcing" or "Indian Nationalist media" for the removal of multiple sourced statements. I hope, then, that you will not consider Al-Jazeera or CNN to be "Indian Nationalist media".Al Jazeera and CNN state both things which were removed by you two - [6] and [7]CNN states
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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.
- 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 [9] - 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- Why? Having only the "clarifications" of one side doesnt seem very NPOV to me. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Merge request
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.
Hardeep Singh Nijjar#Death and subsequent diplomatic dispute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) into 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on behalf of @Schwinnspeed. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The rational given by Schwinnspeed --- I have redirected 2023 Canada-India diplomatic row to Diplomatic fallout section on the Hardeep Singh Nijjar page.
There have been several discussions (1, 2, 3) about whether this content needs to be split and a new page created to cover the 2023 India Canada diplomatic crisis (or in this instance "row") but I believe consensus still applies given current events are still largely in line with what is already covered.
Alternatively, we can redirect this page to 2023 Diplomatic Crisis section on the Canada - India relations page. Open to this option (now that I'm thinking about it, actually prefer it) but don't think the current content and previous consensus warrant a separate page that would be largely WP:Redundant. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 10:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- I oppose this merge. These are two different topics. Putting too much diplomatic content here is irrelevant (and UNDUE) as it doesn't directly tie into the life of Nijjar. VR talk 17:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- your vote doesn't make sense. You said oppose but you want diplomatic content to be merged into that article and don't remove redirect until this consesus completes. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
- There is no article right now on the 2023 diplomatic row. Only a redirect to this article. Senorangel (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- These should be separate articles. Too much has been forced into this biography that isn't really about Hardeep Singh Nijjar.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- You may want to make that more clear. Vice regent does not seem to have understood what is being requested either. Senorangel (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have made it clear below. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Splitting proposal
I have proposed a potential WP:SPLIT of the content related to the Diplomatic Fallout into a new article 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis or 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row. There has been a recurring issue with users creating separate articles without prior consensus, resulting in articles that essentially constitute WP:CFORK and are WP:DUPLICATE of the existing Hardeep Singh Nijjar article.
The initial attempt to address this was the creation of the 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis article, as documented in the discussion at Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar/Archive_1#Split_content_to_2023_India-Canada_diplomatic_crisis, which unfortunately did not reach a conclusive decision. Subsequently, another user copied the content to create the 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row article, again without a prior merge or split proposal.
These new articles share approximately 90% of their content with the original Hardeep Singh Nijjar article. Therefore, I have submitted this request to initiate a formal split discussion, with the aim of reaching a consensus-based resolution.
pinging involved useres: @Lukt64, The Kip, Schwinnspeed, and CapnJackSp: 2402:A00:152:85D3:61B4:3AA2:6876:1690 (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I have no opinion on if a split should be made or not, but some amount of content needs to remain in this article so I'm not clear how it'd end up much more than a duplicate of this article. There's very little information on the crisis/row other than the direct fallout of the killing of Hardeep Nijjar. If it does get split in some manner, I'd vote for the "diplomatic row" wording unless things continue to escalate beyond just recalling of diplomats. Ergzay (talk) 17:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support Split proposal as there is sufficient content for separate "2023 Canada–India diplomatic row" article as per WP:Notability with multiple WP:RS sources and it satisfies the criteria of WP:GNG for a separate Wiki article. Also, this article is losing focus and getting too long with new developments in 2023 diplomatic row. RogerYg (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose split. The article is not long at all; at 17 kB of readable prose
length alone does not justify division or trimming
per WP:TOOBIG. I see minimal developments in the last month, so it's not like the amount of length needed to cover the subject is rapidly growing. Notability is not a concern since we are discussing where to have this content, not whether to have it. VQuakr (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC) - Oppose: This page only contains 17kB of readable prose - so there is not a viable length reason for splitting. I'm also not convinced there even needs to be a standalone page on a diplomatic rift/crisis. This was a very isolated and pretty uneventful and unimpactful, short-lived diplomatic spat (it already appears to have blown over), and it largely only affected the two involved countries. Effects and impact were extremely limited. Long-term it's a non-event. I don't see why it can't remain as a section in Canada–India relations (also a page with only 18kB) and be left at that. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Iskandar323: Because it is a WP:DUEness issue. Should more than a 70 years of Canada–India relations be overwhelmingly defined by the 2023 row? VR talk 04:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose split. There is no need for a split of this article. The circumstances of his death fit neatly into the article about him. No need to send our readers to separate articles that a good copyedit of this one wouldn't fix. If substantial new information arises about his death and the investigation, then a split can be considered at that time. Wikipedia has no time limits. Cheers, GenQuest "scribble" 16:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOMERGE point three / WP:CONTENTSPLIT applies here, in my opinion.
"The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short."
(bolding mine). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NOMERGE point three / WP:CONTENTSPLIT applies here, in my opinion.
- Comment There have not been many updates lately. Information about the diplomatic row is not too long right now. Combined with the killing, the entire chain of events does take up a substantial part of this article. Senorangel (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
- Support split. This is an ongoing issue. Just this week there was an apparent terrorist threat to Air India in Canada[10]. This is much bigger than Hardeep Singh Nijjar. And it would be WP:UNDUE at Canada–India relations.VR talk 04:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Support split - These should be separate articles. Too much has been forced into this biography that isn't really about Hardeep Singh Nijjar.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- On further consideration, I think the content should stay here, and oppose a split. Much of the "diplomatic row" content is already appropriately included at Canada–India relations#2023 diplomatic row. That section can continue to grow and incorporate appropriate content from this article, and vice versa. We don't need a third article on this. That said, I still question whether this article should be a biography, as opposed to an article about the "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar", which is the primary reason for his notability. It might also be worth considering whether some of the redirects should really point here, as opposed to the appropriate section of the Canada–India relations article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Darryl Kerrigan: I get the impression that ultimately, we're wanting the same end result. I think we both are of the opinion that Nijjar's notability is primarily based on his death and therefore that should be the scope of an article. I'm be honest, I'm not fussed over how we get there, whether through splitting or through renaming. I think the repeated requests (of which I'm guilty of contributing to) have sowed confusion over what we want as well. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. I think we need to look at the project as a whole. It seems, at least for the time being, that this content can live here (whether the article is renamed or not) and at Canada–India relations#2023 diplomatic row. Then in future if more counties become involved and/or this diplomatic row/fallout becomes a long lasting issue (perhaps even with well reported investigations, reports, trials etc.) then editors here and at Talk:Canada–India relations might decide that a spin off like 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis is necessary. For the time being, I think these two articles can handle the content, though my preference is that this article do that as an article about his death (not as a biography).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) Well, this article is already too long to add new diplomactic details, many of which are not directly linked to Nijjar's death. Also, please note that Nijjar was quite notable in India and even in some Canandian media, even before his death, when he was put on the International Police (Interpol) arrest warrant (Red-corner notice) list in 2016; and again in 2020, when he was designated a terrorist by India, and was alleged to be the chief of "Khalistan Tiger Force". For example
- Vancouver Sun (29 May 2016). "Surrey man accused of running 'terror camp' near Mission". https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/surrey-man-accused-on-running-terror-camp-near-mission
- The Tribune. (20 September 2022). "Canada allowed Hardeep Singh Nijjar citizenship when India demanded his arrest". https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/punjab/canada-allowed-hardeep-singh-nijjar-citizenship-when-india-demanded-his-arrest-546217
- The Hindu Bureau (22 July 2022). "NIA declares ₹10 lakh reward for information on Khalistan Tiger Force chief". The Hindu.
- And, many of the new diplomatic tensions are no longer due to Nijjar, but now due to other pro-Khalistan activists such as Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, who has issued threats against Air-India flights from Nov 19, 2023 onwards. So these new developments should not be under Nijjar article, but instead under Canada–India relations#2023 diplomatic row or split article. RogerYg (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) Well, this article is already too long to add new diplomactic details, many of which are not directly linked to Nijjar's death. Also, please note that Nijjar was quite notable in India and even in some Canandian media, even before his death, when he was put on the International Police (Interpol) arrest warrant (Red-corner notice) list in 2016; and again in 2020, when he was designated a terrorist by India, and was alleged to be the chief of "Khalistan Tiger Force". For example
- Agreed. I think we need to look at the project as a whole. It seems, at least for the time being, that this content can live here (whether the article is renamed or not) and at Canada–India relations#2023 diplomatic row. Then in future if more counties become involved and/or this diplomatic row/fallout becomes a long lasting issue (perhaps even with well reported investigations, reports, trials etc.) then editors here and at Talk:Canada–India relations might decide that a spin off like 2023 Canada–India diplomatic crisis is necessary. For the time being, I think these two articles can handle the content, though my preference is that this article do that as an article about his death (not as a biography).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Darryl Kerrigan: I get the impression that ultimately, we're wanting the same end result. I think we both are of the opinion that Nijjar's notability is primarily based on his death and therefore that should be the scope of an article. I'm be honest, I'm not fussed over how we get there, whether through splitting or through renaming. I think the repeated requests (of which I'm guilty of contributing to) have sowed confusion over what we want as well. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- On further consideration, I think the content should stay here, and oppose a split. Much of the "diplomatic row" content is already appropriately included at Canada–India relations#2023 diplomatic row. That section can continue to grow and incorporate appropriate content from this article, and vice versa. We don't need a third article on this. That said, I still question whether this article should be a biography, as opposed to an article about the "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar", which is the primary reason for his notability. It might also be worth considering whether some of the redirects should really point here, as opposed to the appropriate section of the Canada–India relations article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Support split to 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row or Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar per my previous split proposal from September 21. @AirshipJungleman29: I'm wondering specifically if you still oppose a split. I'm pinging you because you identify as an "exclusionist" and I do still feel that a split would"...[seek] to maximize the usefulness of an article by removing ... superfluous information"
from this biographical article and would not create two duplicate articles, a concern you expressed from the September proposal (and if it would, than is Nijjar really independently notable from his killing?). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose split per Darryl; the scope of the article should be about the death of Nijjar, not a biography on Nijjar. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 18:03, 24 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)
- [11] 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 splitand 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)