Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar

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, 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: 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)
 * 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). &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:44, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 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. 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. 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)
 * 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. &#8213;  "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. 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 Canadian 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 or split article. RogerYg (talk) 06:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Without clear consensus on the split, I'd propose canvassing further thoughts on renaming this to "Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar" which I support due to his notability chiefly stemming from the circumstances around his death. Cavernousknoll (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support split to 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row or Death of Hardeep Singh Nijjar per my previous split proposal from September 21. 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?). &#8213;  "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. &#8213;  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support split Diplomatic fallout section is enough to split the page.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support split Obviously even with a split, there should still be mention of the murder of Nijjar. Though I wonder if the split article should just cover Canada, or all the countries that Indian death squads have been operating in. And looking into that, I'm surprised there's no mention of this recent terrorism at Death squad. Nfitz (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This article should be deleted. This person is/was not important to have an article 122.150.101.240 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering the extensive international media coverage of his death, I can understand arguing for the article to focus on that (like many other users have suggested), but deletion seems unwarranted, at least with respect to notability. Jwuthe2 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2024
Most wanted Terrorist declared By India 2405:201:681C:A91F:6EDC:CCCE:E06F:AA4E (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ❌ per MOS:LABEL. Black Kite (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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


 * I don't think it's undue because it brings important information from WP:RS Canadian sources. Also, the same details were previously reported in multiple WP:RS Indian sources, but previously on this page, even highly reliable WP:RS sources such as Indian Express, NDTV, and Deccan Herald were referred to as unreliable "Indian media reports" or "Indian allegations". Therefore, it becomes important for balanced WP:NPOV and WP:DUE to have a section with critical reporting from Canadian media. Also, it is no longer single source, as citations have been added from "Globe & Mail". but also from National Post and CBC. Going forward more sources can be added. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The article maintains numerous NPOV issues, among which is the size of this section. &#8213;  "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. &#8213;  "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. &#8213;  "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. &#8213;  "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.png
 * 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)