Talk:Jagmeet Singh/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jagmeet Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140826160747/http://jagmeetsingh.ca/jagmeet-singh-a-defender-of-human-rights/ to http://jagmeetsingh.ca/jagmeet-singh-a-defender-of-human-rights/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jagmeet Singh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120623050619/http://worldsikh.ca/blog/wso-editor/wsos-2012-list-honorees to http://worldsikh.ca/blog/wso-editor/wsos-2012-list-honorees

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Jagmeet Singh - 2019.jpg
 * Leaders of federal political parties in Canada, 2018.jpg
 * March 2019 Jagmeet Singh Gurkiran Kaur.jpg

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Jagmeet Singh in Toronto.jpg

Picture
There is a different Jagmeet Singh picture on. It is only 151x206 but I think it makes Singh look more dignified. I will try to replace the current image if and only if others approve. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer this one. It's of higher resolution and his beard doesn't blend into his suit/the background like it does in the smaller picture. He also looks happy, not dour in this one, but that's an entirely subjective reason to have a picture over another. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought he looks unhappy, but okay, forget my suggestion. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

NDP Deputy Leader Predecessor
Hello,

Can anyone verify that Marilyn Churley preceded Singh as Ontario NDP Deputy Leader? Although Churley's tenure ended in 2005, I couldn't find anyone in the timeframe of 2005-2015 that assumed the role of Deputy Leader.

Also, can anyone verify that Singh stepped down as Leader on May 16, 2017? I have read a variety of sources stating "Jagmeet Singh steps down as Ontario NDP deputy leader during federal bid" on said date, but I am not too sure that he officially stepped down on that date.

Thanks! Curdlash (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

What does "progressive" mean?
1.) First of all: It`s a liberal euphemism. 2.) Is he socialist? Or a left-winger? Demanding higher taxation? Come on wikipedia, do not use left-wing talking points when you should be neutral.

46.93.250.227 (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Criticism
This entire article reads like a campaign leaflet. Why is this the NDP's new election platform, and how come nobody is fixing the shit? 174.115.100.93 (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Be specific. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Drmies is correct. You need to point out specific content that you have an issue with if you expect anything to happen — just smearing the whole article indiscriminately accomplishes absolutely nothing. "Neutral" does not mean "agrees with my preexisting opinion", and "biased" does not mean "disagrees with my opinion" — a significant portion of the time, accusations of bias on Wikipedia have a lot less to do with any actual problems in the article itself, and more to do with the fact that it doesn't concord with the accuser's own personal biases. So point out specific examples of what content in the article you have a problem with, or buzz off. Bearcat (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Environmental policy
Please help me add to this section. Peerreviewededitor (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Native name
Jagmeet Singh's native name is not "ਜਗਮੀਤ ਸਿੰਘ", it is just "Jagmeet Singh". He was born in Scarborough and raised in Windsor, thus his native country is Canada and his native language is English. If he had been born and raised elsewhere, and later became a naturalized Canadian, his native name would not necessarily be the Latinized version. All Ontario and federal personal documents use Latin script. Wasialoneorinthehd (talk) 22:11, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. His name in Latin script is the official version and the Punjabi transliteration is MOS:NICKCRUFT. Removing. Madg2011 (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

To the user Vif12vf: I'm Indian and his name is pronounced jug-MEET and not jəg-MEET. It's a subtle difference. He himself pronounces it that way. I'd be happy if you reverted the reversion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.193.235 (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

School
From Grade 6 to 12, Singh attended Detroit Country Day School in Beverly Hills, Michigan.[22] Should read From Grade 6 to 12, Singh attended the private Detroit Country Day School in Beverly Hills, Michigan.[22]

The basic difference or distinguishing characteristic of that school is that it's private. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Controversy section, views on Khalistan
All things edited had concrete references. Jagmeet Singh has repeatedly failed to denounce the Air India bombings. He has attended rallies and shared stage with people/organisations calling for violence. This is relevant politics, as indicated by recent coverage in various news sources in both India and Canada. You have to just google it to know it was widely discussed by various reporters in Canada. Being denied visa to some country, questions about international affairs is newsworthy for a politician of national level, since it is his political views and actions. I don't see why these important and objective political details are being repeatedly undone. They are more certainly important for his biography than his lifestyle and fashion sense, which the article covers in much detail (I am not saying these shouldn't be there too). Msec109 (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Air India bombing happened when Jagmeet Singh was five years old, and the perpetrator was not his father or grandfather or uncle or brother or cousin, so he has no more responsibility to issue any personal denunciation of the perpetrator than either Justin Trudeau or Andrew Scheer do — and ZOMG, they haven't done so either! The only reason it's a talking point about Singh, and not about Scheer and Trudeau and Martine Ouellet and Doug Ford and Jason Kenney and every other provincial leader in the country who's never issued a personal denunciation statement about it either, is that Singh happens to be a brown dude. As for the "rallies", he has no special responsibility to personally undertake a special background check of everybody else who happens to be attending an event before he commits to attending it as well, either — he is only accountable for what he says or does at an event, not what anybody else says or does, so again Singh is no more accountable for other people's words at the event than Justin Trudeau would be if he attended a community barbecue where some random person he had never met before happened to get up on stage and yell "KILL TRUMP!"
 * This is a ludicrous argument. Air India 182 is a monumental event.  Singh attended -- not as a personal matter, but as activism and public advocacy, as politics -- events that endorsed and condoned violence, explicitly venerated the perpetrators of the acts, endorsed and called for more violence.  He did this AFTER he had been denied a visa from India -- the first for a western politician(!) -- this isnt some triviality.  It's intentional, obvious and worthy of inclusion here.  He attended not one, but at least three events after this visa denial.  The mealy mouthed dismissal, effectively saying it's "trivial" is clearly a lie to hid the discussion.
 * So no, these are not "important" or "objective" political details: literally the only reason either issue exists at all is racism. It's exactly the same as how every Muslim is automatically a suspected terrorist, with a special personal responsibility to personally denounce every single bad thing any Muslim they've never met before does anywhere in the world, yet no white guy is ever held to the same standard when some other white guy commits a mass shooting or bombs a government office building in Oklahoma City. There's simply no valid reason why Jagmeet Singh's failure to denounce a terrorist act, committed by some other person he's never met when he was just five years old, is a serious issue at all — there's exactly no non-racist explanation possible for why he would need to. It's not his responsibility to go out of his way to denounce it, and it's not his responsibility to give two shits about the opinion of anybody who thinks it is. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "racism" Are you saying Singh is racist against Hindus and Muslims because he supports the violent creation of a theocratic state for Sikhs?
 * I agree with and also, Singh has denounced+condemned it: NDP leader Singh says he accepts the results of Air India inquiry, and condemns Talwinder Singh Parmar // sikander { talk } 16:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He had spent many years participating and speaking at events that called for violence. At events that venerated terrorists.  He had to be pulled kicking and screaming to say such, he originally refused.
 * I hadn't seen that report yet, but there is that as well. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean all of media is racist and India denied Singh a visa just because of his race? More than once, Jagmeet Singh attended events linked to such organisations/ cause and actively marched/ gave speeches. A journalist compared this to someone in USA attending events related to the martyrdom of Osama, since the AI bombing was Canada's biggest terror attack. You are being deliberately obtuse. This has nothing to do with racism. And if Singh has changed his stance now, the article should reflect that and not completely omit the controversy. You can read more - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jagmeet-singh-attended-sikh-separatist-rally-in-2015/ _ http://torontosun.com/2017/10/03/jagmeet-singh-fails-his-first-test-of-leadership/wcm/885bdb49-c6b4-488c-b905-a193ffca14ba  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msec109 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, media can be racist, and India quite routinely does deny visas to non-citizen Sikhs without due process or any evidence of actual wrongdoing. And again, attending a Sikh community event does not make him personally accountable for the actions or statements of everybody else who happens to be at the same event, any more than his attending a Pride parade would make him personally accountable for the behaviour of the three or four guys two miles down the parade who happen to march in the nude. He is accountable only for his own actions and statements, and not for what other people happen to say or do at the same event.
 * I'm not being "deliberately obtuse" in the slightest — my eyes are completely open, and my critical thinking skills are completely on the ball, on this. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @bearcat, he wasnt a bystander here; he was speaking at events that called for violence. More than once.  And, he did it AFTER he was the first western politician denied a indian visa -- do you think you know better the nature and framing of Singh's behaviour than the Indian government?  Are all proud Sikhs also denied visas?  His visa denial makes irrefutable the nature of his relationship to Khalistani terrorism; at least in the eyes of the Government of India - are you saying you know better, or should be considered a better authority than the Indian Governemnt?  Or, all the major national and international references provided? This is absurd.
 * "Media is racist, India denied visa for no reasons" - that is just your opinion. Wikipedia articles are based on facts based on news sources, not on personal opinion or critical thinking skills. If others share your opinions, you can add those with references. As of now, those edits about this article are newsworthy and should be there. Msec109 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And it's just your opinion that these matters are relevant to Jagmeet Singh. It is a simple fact that there is no non-racist reason why Jagmeet Singh has any special responsibility to issue a special personal denouncement of an incident that never had anything to do with him in the first place, just because he happens to be of the same ethnicity as the incident's perpetrator. That's not my opinion; it's the cold, hard, objective, neutral and completely incontrovertible fact of the matter. These are also, for example, the same media outlets that tried to make a thing, ten years after the fact, out of a traffic accident in which Julie Payette was found to be not at fault; and that put words in Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's mouth to attack her for something she never said about being a "first lady"; and that uncritically reported as fact a half-baked and inaccurate press release from the city of Calgary that it had surpassed Ottawa in population to become Canada's third largest city, based on an apples-to-oranges comparison of Calgary's population in an intercensal update to Ottawa's population in the last regular census, which forgot to account for the fact that Ottawa had grown in the intervening years too. Media are not always perfectly objective reporters of truth — journalists can have biases and make mistakes, so critical thinking skills are necessary to distinguish whether media coverage is accurate and relevant and noteworthy or not, and this matter is none of those things. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

On the controversial issues, I'd say it's relevant to include the fact that India denied Singh a visa, simply because that speaks to a looming controversy (and potential diplomatic issue), regardless of the merit of the denial. If there is any information on his views on Khalistan and the independence movement, I believe that that is also relevant to include, as it speaks to ideological beliefs that should be documented for all politicians.

His attendance at any particular rally or seminar is not, insofar as I can tell, relevant in it of itself, nor does it necessarily signify anything. If he has any comment on whether on how exactly independence can or should be obtained, that should also be included. Perhaps something along the model of the Jeremiah Wright controversy would work? The brouhaha has almost become worthy of documentation in it of itself.
 * This is madness. Youre argument is that Singh's visa denial *isnt* relevant to Singh?  That a decade of his advocacy, media coverage is irrelevant because your opinion is more valid?  The calgary/Trudeau screed is irrelevant distraction.

PvOberstein (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with this stance.
 * Denial of visa: should be included. Doesn't carry a positive or negative connotation.
 * Attendance at rally: not notable inofitself, but there may be an argument for inclusion based on the extensive coverage in national and international media. Wording will have to be chosen very carefully to comply with BLP.
 * "Failure to denounce": absolutely should not be included.
 * Allegations of separatist viewpoints without indisputable sources: absolutely should not be inluded.
 * Madg2011 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest that if denial of visa is included, some background be provided, with regards to his efforts towards getting 1984 declared a genocide etc.Js82 (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Attendance of rallies - The rallies purpose were Sikh separatism/sovereignty issues (which is a huge political issue like Quebec's independence) where banners on stage, posters specifically mentioned it. Singh actively participated and gave speeches in the rallies, hence Singh was asked if he endorsed the issues which were raised in those rallies by his co-speakers, including once where a co-speaker in UK called for violence as legitimate means for establishing a Sikh nation. Failure to denounce is important because terrorists responsible for Air India bombings and political assassinations were celebrated as martyrs in these rallies through their posters. Msec109 (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * @msec109 is correct. Singh speaking -- not merely attending -- "pro Khalistan" rallies makes obvious his "separatist" viewpoints.  It's irrefutable.  You dont advocate from the dais at a rally in support of a cause and deny advocacy of the cause.  That's incomprehensible.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 00:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat (in agreement) what Bearcat said above "As for the "rallies", he has no special responsibility to personally undertake a special background check of everybody else who happens to be attending an event before he commits to attending it as well, either — he is only accountable for what he says or does at an event, not what anybody else says or does". (I do not even know what "rallies" these were. Probably some cultural events/parades, where some of the people end up raising sovereignty issue.) For Air India, again, let me (almost) repeat (in agreement) what Bearcat said above "The Air India bombing happened when Jagmeet Singh was five years old, and the perpetrator was not his father or grandfather or uncle or brother or cousin, so he has no more responsibility to issue any personal denunciation of the perpetrator than either xxx or yyy, they haven't done so either! The only reason it's a talking point about Singh, and not about xxx, yyy, and every other provincial leader in the country who's never issued a personal denunciation statement about it either, is that Singh happens to be a brown (Sikh) dude."


 * This is not supposed to be a voice for tabloid journalism. Js82 (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that CBC is "tabloid" journalism?


 * Who are you to say "I do not even know what rallies these were". The specified purpose were Sikh nationhood and some of the rallies/ meetings were named "Sikh sovereignty", not any cultural event as evident from the posters and banners. It has nothing to do about background check of participants. I also mentioned why AI bombings are relevant. You are being deliberately naive. You have an agenda, which is clear from your edit history and bio. I do not want to engage with you further. Msec109 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm being deliberately naive, someone else is being deliberately obtuse, ... and you are being ? One real post I make, and you turn to personal attacks ? Sorry, but I think it is evident who has an agenda here. Good luck. Js82 (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Controversy section
Wikipedia biographies and articles are meant to give a rounded perspective of events and people, not stick the cleansed glorification. The Wikipedia articles of all other leaders including politicians show the controversies surrounding their decision and their choices. This is no different.

It is not about whether he knew about the rallies he was attending, but the controversy that came out after he did. Everything is sourced and documented. There is no reason to remove any of it because it one doesn't like the personal feelings regarding it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 18:43, June 17, 2021 (UTC)
 * These edits are highly POV. No WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS. These edits show what that essay is about. You're expanding on his being denied a visa by adding only negative things, including the entire quote of an Indian consulate and nothing from Singh in response. Then you use guilt by association because he spoke at a rally where there was a "large poster" of a militant leader regarded by the Indian government as a terrorist. "Regarded by" is doing a lot of work there. Then there's another guilt by association from a panel he spoke on. And you finish by finally giving a quote from Singh condemning terrorism, you couch it in doubtful language that because he was slow to accept the findings of an inquiry, he doesn't actually condemn terrorism. I'm notifying the WP:BLP/N. I think this fits under discretionary sanctions. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The edits are not POV. They're well sourced, and on the topic of Khalistani terrorism, it's the GOVERNMENT of INDIA who denied him a visa and the conversations and analysis by Mileski -- "one of Canada's foremost journalistic experts on Flight 182" -- that makes it not POV.  To suggest it's "POV" is to try and pretend that these arent serious matters, but instead frivolous and trivial.  He was denied a visa, THEN there were following, more deeply concerning behaviours. I would hope further edits to include more insight on on the conditions that proceeded the visa denial; to add additional context in this chronology.    Pretending that the "large poster" is a triviality is *again* ludicrous; it was the perspective of the CBC that it would be akin "to a US politician not knowing who Osama Bin Laden is" -- again, this is *after* India denied his visa.  Singh was absolutely not naïve.  If you want quotes from Singh re: Indian visa denial, YOU can include them.  That is NOT justification to remove the comment from the TORONTO INDIAN CONSULATE about a sitting CANADIAN parlimentrian.  Having a single sentance, without any reason -- and in fact, the line as it's PRESENTLY written ("as denied a visa to India for raising the issue of the 1984 Sikh massacre.") is an outright LIE.  How do we know that?  Because the INDIAN CONSULATE tells you why, and Singh was not "denied a visa for raising the issue of the 1984 sikh massacre" -- that's an outright lie.  He was denied the visa for the reasons the CONSULTE informs us.  And "bringing up 1984 sikh massacre." is not it. In fact, even WIKIPEDIA doesnt frame it that way, it's actually "1984 anti-Sikh riots" -- this framing FURTHER reveals the PositivePOV that is white-washing this article.  He is not "guilt by association", he SPOKE AT THESE RALLIES who's cause was as the consulate said.  The entire disposition of your post is ludicrous on it's face.  Re: "you couch it in doubtful language" -- **I** didnt. The CBC(!) did.  Canada's FOREMOST JOURNALISTIC authority framed it that way(!), not the editor.  This article is being guarded by clear PPOV gatekeepers who are claiming CBC, Mileski ("Canada's foremost journalistic authority on Flight 182 (killing >300(!) people)) and the INDIAN CONSULATE IN TORONTO are to be considered unworthy, notable authorities on the topic.  Instead, the PPOV gatekeepers here are arguing *THEY* have a better, neutral position on what should be written here.  this is preposterous.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021
To align with the other candidates, this page should include information about the candidate and party in the 2021 Canadian elections. Traincoats (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Early life
The 2nd paragraph of the "Early life" section starts "Singh has two younger siblings, brother Gurratan and sister Manjot, who were both born during the family's time in Newfoundland. He also has a cousin brother named Harteerath Singh who is currently completing High School in India.[18] Gurratan, who is also a lawyer and politician, has been described as Jagmeet's "secret weapon".[20][21] ". Should cousin or brother be deleted? None of the references mention Harteerath or Manjot. Mcljlm (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I removed it, it was added by on 13 September 2019, with no citation. Leventio (talk) 05:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

In the paragraph that is talking about his schooling and education, there is a part that says "He was called to the bar of Ontario in 2006 [28]" and the citation's source doesn't exist anymoreJust a guy helping (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The text of the original source can be found in the citation's archivelink which directs the reader here. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Singh's brother-in-law
Since July, Singh's article has had coverage of his brother-in-law's physical assault arrest during a political rally. I moved that statement to its own paragraph, tonight, adding about the brother-in-law's support of the trucker's convoy. Politicians' relatives' actions are accounted for on other articles; Jimmy Carter (GA) talks about Billy Carter.

When a political party has to go into damage control repeatedly, is that not relevant? The latest incident has been reported by CBC, National Post, Global, CTV, Narcity, Edmonton Journal, Macleans, and through syndication of the National Post article to other Postmedia properties, Hanna Herald, Melfort Journal. -- Zanimum (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

French pronunciation
Can anyone provide the French pronunciation of the name?

Quang, Bùi Huy (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sentence and reference 124 in Personal Life strongly misleading
The following sentence: In 2013, Singh was denied a visa to India for raising the issue of the 1984 Sikh massacre. does not accurately reflect the article referenced.

The title of the referenced article is stated to be: Ontario MPP Jagmeet Singh denied visa to visit India for raising "the issue of the killing of Sikhs in New Delhi". The actual title (at Globe and Mail and Internet Archive) reads: Ontario MPP Jagmeet Singh denied visa to visit India. Why has the reference title been editorialized? Shouldn't it reflect the actual title of the article?

The Indian Consul-General Akhilesh Mishra stated regarding Jagmeet Singh that he was rejected for "indulging in, directly or indirectly, attacking India's sovereignty and territorial integrity" (penultimate paragraph).

So, a more accurate sentence would be: In 2013, Singh was denied a visa to India for "indulging in, directly or indirectly, attacking India's sovereignty and territorial integrity". 2001:4BB8:2A7:2939:FD3E:EC14:E08B:6B4F (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Not first minority leader
Jagmeet Singh is not the first national leader from a minority background. David Lewis led the NDP in the late 60s or early 70s and was Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toronto100 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
72.138.87.62 (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC) I just want to fix some wrong stuff
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Change "As of May 2019 Singh supported fracking" to "Singh opposes fracking" KevinAdamsDev (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)