This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is part of WikiProject Sikhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Sikhism. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes Global & Mail report below includes a picture of H.S. Nijjar holding an AK-47:
''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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 [1]. 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"
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Black Kite India expressed their disagreement by summoning a Canadian diplomat and recalling an Indian diplomat more than an hour before Canada's expulsion was announced. If you check the timing of the news in UTC, you'll understand. राजकुमार(talk)13:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Yeshi, regarding your question, you would have seen we had summoned the Acting High Commissioner of Canada and thereafter conveyed that we had no faith that the Canadian government will look after the safety of our diplomats, and therefore we had taken a decision to withdraw our High Commissioner and along with him five other diplomats. Subsequent to that, we saw that there was a communication from the Canadian side asking them to leave, but we had withdrawn our diplomats before their decision."
But I'm not sure if we can cite this as it is a primary source. In any case I stand by my previous argument that this was a second round of tit for tat expulsion from both side. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a primary source, so we can only quote it, not use it in Wikivoice. Regardless, India obviously doesn't want the narrative to be that their diplomats are involved in serious crime, so it would obviously try to deflect from that anyway; as I said above, IMO considering how long this issue has been going on it is too much of a coincidence that India suddenly decided to withdraw their diplomats "for their safety" an hour before they were expelled from Canada. Black Kite (talk)07:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant what India or Canada "wants" or doesn't want. The stand of both countries need to be recorded and clearly expressed in this article. One could write that "Canada claims to have expelled the diplomats while India says it withdrew them". But I still think that it would be concise and accurate description of events to say that this was a tit for tat expulsion Since both countries knew what would happen. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should be doing this in a new article that focuses specifically on this, not at a biographical article. There is already a discussion at Talk:Canada–India relations about whether to split sections out into a new article, and I have already proposed that sections of this article be split as well. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)14:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with that. But then this article needs to be re-written with less focus on the diplomatic fallout and more on Nijjar's life and views with a section detailing his death and link to wherever the diplomatic fallout or Canada-India relations are mentioned. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done per MOS:LABEL. Black Kite (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
