Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar

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)

@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)

"was announced" is the operative phrase here. Things happen behind closed doors before they are announced to the public. Twitter is not a reliable source. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

If there's any pro-India bias then I'm ready to work on it to address that on a case by case basis. Regarding the tit for tat expulsion/withdrawal here is the MEA press release https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/38433/Transcript_of_Weekly_Media_Briefing_by_the_Official_Spokesperson_October_17_2024 and I'll quote the relevant paragraph here

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Black Kite, there is an ongoing discussion here in which multiple editors say that the highlighted paragraph should be removed. Dont you need to gain WP:CONSENUS before adding this back?Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Arsh Dalla

Ghost, contrary to your strange description of Arsh Dalla as a low profile individual (quite the opposite), he's been accused of directing organized crime for multiple years and is on the NIA's desginated terrorist list, there are numerous reports of his connection with Nijjar, including in the recent Globe report. The news reports surrounding Dalla date back many years, even before the killing of Nijjar.

Since we already include Nijjar's association with people like Jagtar Singh Tara, how is including a short statement about his supposed affiliation with Dalla any different?

I'm not saying we need to add a whole paragraph, but a sentence such as the one below matches the tone of the existing section and is relevant:

Indian news reports have alleged that Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla, a prominent gangster (or whatever else label) accused of directing crime in Punjab from Canada. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney:, did you even bother to google the guy's name before making your edit? There are numerous reports on him spanning years now. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

These news reports prior to his arrest prove without any shadow of a doubt that Dalla was not a low profile figure and had significant news coverage spanning years, thus not making him eligible for BLPCRIME; we thus add what reliable sources say:

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

The July 2024 Globe report states:

India also claims Mr. Nijjar was connected to yet another Sikh plumber from Surrey: Arshdeep Singh Gill, a 26-year-old who came to Canada from Punjab in 2018. India alleges Mr. Gill runs a criminal network that has close ties to the Khalistan cause, but Mr. Nijjar’s lawyer and friends dispute the alleged link between the pair. Mr. Gill is the reported head of the Dalla Lakhbir gang, accused of using Canada as a base for a violent extortion ring in Punjab. He’s recently toned down his flashy lifestyle and gone into hiding, according to his family, but occasionally surfaces to give interviews to Indian media, often discussing his rivalry with other gangs. Wire-transfer records and WhatsApp messages filed in Indian court show Mr. Gill, alias Arsh Dalla, along with his wife, sent tens of thousands of dollars via Western Union and other money-transfer services to men India alleges are part of an extortion and weapons-smuggling network. India alleges Mr. Gill co-ordinated the attempted murder of a Hindu pandit priest from Mr. Nijjar’s village in 2021, under direction from Mr. Nijjar. One of the accused in that case told police Mr. Gill called him on WhatsApp from Canada in January, 2021, and “told us that as per the order of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, you have to kill a priest namely Kamaldeep Sharma,” according to sworn statements filed in court. The priest was accused of sexually assaulting women in the village, according to the confession. But the priest, in an interview in Punjabi, told The Globe the attempted murder, a shooting, was a dispute over land and he did not believe Mr. Nijjar was behind the attempt on his life. Mr. Gill, who attended Mr. Nijjar’s temple, could not be reached for this story. In an interview this past April with a Punjabi journalist, he denied supporting the Khalistani militancy, but said he killed a Hindu leader who desecrated a Sikh holy book. The Globe was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill’s group.

This CTV news video claims however that Dalla was a former associate of Nijjar's.

So I'm thinking a potential way to incorporate these news reports would be:

India has claimed that Hardeep Singh Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla (Arshdeep Singh Gill), reportedly a gangster accused of running a criminal network close to the Khalistan movement from Canada. In a case surrounding the attempted murder of a Hindu priest in Punjab in 2021, an accused person told the Indian police that Gill co-ordinated the murder at the behest of Nijjar. A 2024 Globe report claimed it "was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill's group." However, a November 2024 CTV news report claimed that Gill was a former associate of Nijjar's. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. As I mentioned at arbitration enforcement and at your user talk page it is a direct contravention of WP:BLPCRIME to put content up on Wikipedia that indicates a non-WP:PUBLICFIGURE is suspected of crimes for which they have not been convicted. Furthermore, as detailed at arbitration enforcement, one cannot be a WP:PUBLICFIGURE simply for having been accused of a crime. Based on these two statements we should leave out anything that would imply that any person associated with Hardeep Singh Nijjar is accused of crimes until such time as they stand trial or they become a politician, celebrity or other independently well-known person. Simonm223 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Southasianhistorian8 In light of, what I hope was a sufficiently exhaustive explanation of WP:BLPCRIME at your user talk page could I please ask you to kindly delete the comments on this page that infer that legally innocent private citizens may have committed crimes? Simonm223 (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Simonm223: Thanks for explaining it much better than I could.

I was additionally opposed to this edit because there is already plenty of adequate sources regarding allegations of militant activity regarding Nijjar. Furthermore, this alleged "criminal network" does not in any way imply "militant activities" so including that would be misleading. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

India alleges Mr. Gill runs a criminal network that has close ties to the Khalistan cause from the Globe report + The sources claimed that one of those arrested is believed to be Canada-based gangster Arsh Dalla, who is associated with the banned Khalistan Tiger Force (KTF) and ran terror modules on behalf of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.

Again, please actually read the articles and sources before commenting. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Response to claims of Dalla's low profile + non public figure

I'd also like to address the BLPCRIME tag surrounding Arsh Dalla + Simonm's claims that Wikipedia must not comment or write about accusations/charges laid against a unconvicted person. Simonm, on my talk page, alleged that in order to do so, one must first establish an unconvicted person's notability independent of any criminal accusations, and if that pre-existing condition exists, we can then write about any allegations.

This is not true and I've asked Simonm to provide quotes from a Wikipedia policy page which states as such, which as of yet has not been provided.

On the other hand, we've detailed charges and written about the charges laid against Derek Chauvin prior to his conviction-[10] in the murder of George Floyd. Chauvin, as far as I know, did not attain any notability outside of his arrest.

We included the suspect's name and charges laid against him here even though he's presumably innocent and has not been convicted. The suspect also did not attain any notability outside the accusations laid against him.

Here we've detailed the suspect's criminal record prior to the arrest, even alleging that they have a dungeon in their basement. Again, no notability outside the arrest.

So clearly, we establish someone is "high profile" (which in this case refers to the ability to allege their involvement in a crime/crimes) by first ensuring that there is a number of reliable, secondary sources which report their name and the accusations against them and then we simply document what these sources say

There are numerous sources and extensive media coverage which talk at length about Dalla dating back years; his potential involvement in crime, his media interviews in which he himself claimed to be behind murders, his absconding to Canada, and most recently his supposed involvement and arrest in connection to a shooting in Ontario etc.

See various Indian news reports: [11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16][17] + In March 2024, it was reported that the Indian government shared Dalla's coordinates to Canadian officials seeking his arrest

This July 2024 Globe and Mail report talked at length about Dalla and his potential connection to Nijjar, it also claimed that Dalla (Gill) gave an interview to a journalist in which he claimed to have killed someone.

This CTV report also speaks at length about his criminal activiites and India's allegations of his connection to Nijjar, and also claims that Dalla gave interviews to a prominent journalist, again claiming to have killed people

This CTV news video also claims that Dalla was a former associate of Nijjar's.

So when we have extensive media coverage surrounding Dalla going back at least since Jan 2023, claiming he's a low profile individual is simply absurd. Not to mention, according to Wikipedia's policy-[18] Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Dalla has willingly and actively sought media attention by giving numerous interviews to journalists. He most certainly cannot be considered low profile.

My stance on the talk page of the Hardeep Singh Nijjar t/p was simply that we incorporate the Globe's and CTV's articles in which they claim that India alleges that Nijjar was associated with Dalla. Before this whole debacle, GhostofDanGurney explicitly agreed to incorporate the July 2024 report into the Nijjar Wikipedia page which contains similar content such as Nijjar's association with Jagtar Singh Tara and Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal—[19], yet conveniently, now has an issue with including similar content related to Arsh Dalla, even though it was also reported in the same Globe report. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I gave you the policy in question. Your response is a text wall that boils down to "they do it on other pages" which is not a compelling point on Wikipedia. Lots of stuff happens on other pages that shouldn't. Simonm223 (talk) 09:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

You clearly did not read my whole post.

In what part of WP:PUBLICFIGURE does it say that a person can only become a public figure independent of accusations of wrongdoing? This is what it does say:

In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.

You are quite literally making things up, refusing to provide relevant quotes from a policy page surrounding your claims on what constitutes a public figure despite multiple requests. Keep it up and I will take this to AN for disruption and IDHT. I am not obligated and will not go by what you personally desire Wikipedia policy be. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

So regarding Simonm's claims surrounding WLP:BLPCRIME-[20], Simom first has to gain WP:CONSENSUS with the larger Wikipedia community in order to proceed, because currently there is nothing on this page-[21] which prescribes these methods or even remotely suggests them. I, nor any other Wikipedia editor, is obligated to go by some made up Wikipedia policy, especially when the overwhelming norm on Wikipedia is otherwise.

Secondly, addressing GhostofDanGurney's claims of WP:COATRACK, essentially stating Arsh Dalla is tangential to this subject, and his claim that Dalla and Nijjar's connection was only "alleged" and adding breaking news of an "arrest" constituting WP:NOTNEWS.

Firstly, my most recently proposed addition to the article-India has claimed that Hardeep Singh Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla (Arshdeep Singh Gill), reportedly a gangster accused of running a criminal network close to the Khalistan movement from Canada. In a case surrounding the attempted murder of a Hindu priest in Punjab in 2021, an accused person told the Indian police that Gill co-ordinated the murder at the behest of Nijjar. A July 2024 Globe report claimed it "was unable to corroborate any links between Mr. Nijjar and Mr. Gill's group." However, a November 2024 CTV news report claimed that Gill was a former associate of Nijjar's. makes no mention of Dalla's arrest, thus making his WP:NOTNEWS argument a moot point.

Secondly, there are multiple reputable sources which speak about India's allegations about Nijjar's connection to Dalla in length, including the Globe report which GhostofDanGurney explicitly agreed to adding, two CTV reports, one of which explicitly states that Dalla was an associate of Nijjar's, not alleging, but stating as a matter of fact, and The Hindu which also states as a matter of fact that Dalla was a aide of Nijjar's. There is consenus in Wikipedia that The Hindu is a reliable source-[22] and has "high credibility" and an anti-Indian government bias according to the MBFC, thus also rendering Ghost's statement that Nijjar's association with Dalla was just alleged. Also see The Hindu on RSP- [23].

Thirdly, my proposed addition the article states that Dalla was accused of committed a criminal act 'which was directed by Nijjar, thus making the association a salient one, not just one in which they chatted here and there. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)