Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 252

Archive 245

←

Archive 250

Archive 251

Archive 252

Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar

– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Southasianhistorian8 on 18:24, 16 November 2024 (UTC).

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Talk:Hardeep Singh Nijjar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Southasianhistorian8 (talk · contribs) GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs) Simonm223 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Primarily determining the public figure/profile status of a person named Arsh Dalla. Both GhostOfDanGurney and Simonm223 are invoking WP:BLPCRIME as well as WP:COATRACK for this figure despite me highlighting numerous sources reporting on this individual since at least January 2023-thus fulfilling the requirement laid out in WP:PUBLICFIGURE, sources in which Dalla has actively sought media attention by speaking to prominent journalists in which he himself confessed to killing people thus making him ineligible to be considered a low profile person as per WP:LOWPROFILE, and naturally these confessions would make the media report on him. In addition, there is significant precedence and a near ubiquitous norm in Wikipedia crime articles in which a person accused of a well documented crime, who has not attained any notability outside their alleged criminal activity, whose conviction status is pending or criminal proceedings are underway, is named, the allegations against them are openly discussed, and their backgrounds exhaustively discussed. Simonm223 contests that to discuss accusations against a person, we must first establish notability independent of any accusations of criminal activity, and if lacking, establish that they have been convicted of a crime, to proceed. I have yet to come across any policy page which outlines such criteria. Also if a volunteer could clarify: how long am I allowed to make my section? And what are the rules for responding to others? How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Through neutral mediation Summary of dispute by GhostOfDanGurney Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. My issue with the edit to Hardeep Singh Nijjar re: Arsh Dalla is beyond the BLPCRIME issue. It goes into the aspect of using another person's arrest to further a POV that Nijjar was a militant extremist. Even if Dalla had a Wikipedia article, I would have still made that revert per WP:COATRACK/WP:NPOV and WP:NOTNEWS. I believe that section of the article already has sufficient (if not already overly sufficient) coverage on the unproven allegations of militancy (mostly via "Nijjar was friends with x, y, and z"). Adding this "breaking news" content on the arrest (just an arrest) of Dalla was unneeded piling-on (another "coat", per COATRACK). Similarly, it fails WP:NOTNEWS, specifically 1) WP:NOTGOSSIP, because Dalla and Nijjar's connection was also only alleged. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Simonm223 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Ultimately the core of this dispute is whether a BLP can become a WP:PUBLICFIGURE on the basis of media attention for a crime they have not been convicted of. It is not disputed that Arsh Dalla has spoken to the press... Regarding the crimes he has been accused of in India and for which Canada has declined extradition. However this media coverage is only because of the high profile India has placed on him as the suspect of a crime. He is otherwise an unremarkable plumber from Surrey. In light of the strong language in WP:BLPCRIME regarding discussing unproven accusations against private people it is my contention that it is inappropriate to discuss him in a Wikipedia article or, frankly, at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC) Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar) I am ready to conduct moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D. This is a contentious topic because it involves India and so is within the scope of the ArbCom decision on India and Pakistan. By agreeing to participate in this discussion. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar) Hi, firstly thank you for agreeing to act as a moderator here @RobertMcClenon. This is a relatively esoteric and hyper partisan topic on Wikipedia, and I'm hoping this platform will guide us to consensus through Wikipedia policy. I believe some context may be needed here: Hardeep Singh Nijjar was a Sikh activist who lived in British Columbia, who advocated for the secession of Punjab from India, in order to create a religious state called Khalistan; the movement faced a heavy crackdown in India during the 1980s and 1990s, and many supporters of the movement moved abroad. India had accused Nijjar of heading a Khalistani militant outfit and directing violent crime in India, well before he gained mainstream attention and notoriety in Canada after his 2023 killing. The Indian media released photos of Nijjar brandishing an AK-47 and Nijjar alongside another prominent Khalistani militant (who by his own account admitted to having directed killings in favour of the movement) a decade beforehand. His name was included on a "most wanted person list" the Chief Minister of Punjab gave to the Canadian Prime Minister in 2018. After his killing, Canadian authorities accused Indian government agents (and later diplomats) of having played a role in the killing, which incited a major diplomatic fallout. Canada and India have long had strained relations over the issue of the alleged harbouring of Khalistani militants, with India accusing Canada of being a refuge for them and being unwilling to crack down on Khalistan militants. We have a section on Nijjar's Wikipedia page "Allegations of militant activities" where India's accusations against him are discussed. A substantial amount of that section was written through this Canadian Globe and Mail report, which analyzed some of the claims against him, and seemingly corroborated some of them (indicating that Nijjar was affiliated and involved in some capacity with Khalistan Tiger Force, had connections with prominent militants, close Canadian associates stating he led 5 men in weapons, GPS, target practice in the BC wilderness etc) and disputed others (stating that Canadian authorities did not believe India provided sufficient evidence to arrest Nijjar, that Indian diplomats were overzealous in labelling some of Nijjar's activism as "terrorism".) India, for some time has alleged that Nijjar was associated with Arsh Dalla, reportedly a gangster who absconded to Canada in 2018, accused of directing crime and murders in India in favour of the Khalistan movement. Dalla and Nijjar lived in the same city, were in the same profession (plumbing), and Dalla went to the same Sikh temple Nijjar was the head of. Arsh Dalla has himself talked to the Indian media, stating that he killed people and committed violent crimes, and was recently arrested in Ontario in connection to a violent shooting. India requested his extradition from Canada, but it supposedly was rejected. My stance is that we should include a brief few sentences or paragraphs surrounding Dalla's alleged connection to Nijjar. This is consistent with the tone and content already in the aforementioned section, which was agreed upon between myself and GoDG back in June/July. As militancy is often conducted through concerted efforts with other like minded individuals, we should provide details of associations, if 1) Those associations were discussed or alleged in length in WP:RS and 2) if Nijjar used the association to conduct or facilitate clandestine activities, either though his own direct involvement or commands. This is what the Globe and Mail report: 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. These are 2 recent CTV (another prominent Canadian news organization) reports: Dalla has lived in Canada for several years. According to multiple media reports in India, he’s also a known associate of Hardeep Nijjar -- a Sikh separatist activist who was involved with the Khalistan movement which calls for an independent Sikh state. This CTV report states as a matter of fact that Dalla was a former associate of Nijjar's. We also have various reliable Indian news reports which state that Nijjar was associated with Dalla. I will be citing The Hindu and The Indian Express, both of which regularly provide very well researched and comprehensive news. There is already consensus on Wikipedia that these 2 sources are reliable-The Hindu in RSP and The Indian Express in RSP. The Hindu states Arsh Dalla was a close aide of the then KTF chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar, who was gunned down by unidentified assailants in the parking lot of a gurudwara in Canada’s Surrey on June 18, 2023. Subsequently, he took over as the outfit’s operations. The Indian Express states The Canada Police have arrested Arsh Dalla, a designated terrorist by India’s National Investigation Agency (NIA) and a close aide of slain Khalistan separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar. Dalla will be produced before a local court tomorrow...The NIA had designated 27-year-old Arsh Dala as an individual terrorist in 2023. He started off as a small-time gangster in Moga, Punjab, before fleeing to Canada in 2018. There, he came in contact with Khalistan Tiger Force chief Hardeep Singh Nijjar and began collaborating with him. The Globe and Mail has described Dalla as a plumber in Surrey who frequented the Guru Nanak Darbar gurdwara, where Nijjar was the president. The paper, unable to reach him, had reported: “He’s [Dalla] 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.” An NIA chargesheet filed in July 2023 alleges that Dalla used his connections in Punjab to form a “terrorist gang”. “He, along with Nijjar, raised funds through extortion and targeted killings of businessmen and leaders from specific communities in Punjab,” states the chargesheet. My stance is specifically to summarize the Globe report, the CTV reports, and the last 2 sources to provide a brief explanation about Nijjar and Dalla's alleged association, something along the lines of 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 June 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, and various Indian news outlets assert that Gill was a former associate of Nijjar's. Gill has denied supporting the Khalistan militancy. BLP policy surrounding Dalla WP:PUBLICFIGURE- Has a multitude of reliable sources reporting on the subject.  Done as there are numerous Indian and Canadian sources reporting on him since Jan 2023. WP:LOWPROFILE Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.  Done per [1] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Thanks, Robert. I would like the content on "Arsh Dalla" to not be inserted into the article. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC) Thank you Robert. I would also like to remove any mention of Arsh Dalla from the article. Simonm223 (talk) 11:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar) One editor has made a concise statement that information about Arsh Dalla should not be included in the article. Another editor has made a concise statement that the information about Arsh Dalla should be removed from the article. Another editor has made a statement that is long, when I asked for a concise statement, about Arsh Dalla, and says that a few sentences or paragraphs about Arsh Dalla should be included in the article. (A 1380-word statement is not concise.) There is no mention in the article about Arsh Dalla. It appears that there is a content dispute because one editor wants to add material about Arsh Dalla and the other two editors do not want the information included. My request to the editor who wants to discuss Arsh Dalla is: Write the draft paragraph about Arsh Dalla, and let the other two editors and the moderator read it. After we know exactly what the proposed added text is, we can discuss better, and can better assess whether it will satisfy the policy on biographies of living persons, and the guideline on due weight. Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar) I believe there is an issue with the "Allegations of militant activity" section overall and that it should be shortened considerably. I think it has too much WP:WEIGHT on minute details of specific allegations, either unproven allegations of criminal activity or "X was friends with Y who did Z" type statements. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (hihi) 08:54, 23 November 2024 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Hardeep Singh_Nijjar) One editor has stated that they want to add information about Arsh Dalla to the article. Another editor has stated that they want to shorten the section on Allegations of militant activity. The editor who wants to add information about Arsh Dalla is asked to write the draft paragraphs for review. The editor who wants to trim the section on allegations of militant activity is asked to write a draft shortened section for review. After the draft sections are available for review, I will ask for comments on them. Are there any other content issues, or any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Hardeep Singh Nijjar) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eastern Tennessee seismic zone

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. – General close. See comments for reasoning. Filed by Mccunicano on 17:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Eastern Tennessee seismic zone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Mccunicano (talk · contribs) Dawnseeker2000 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The article 2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake was redirected here after a discussion there rather than talk page here that it didn't warrant an article alone, but that it's content was valuable to this article. The user who initiated the afd for that article has issue with any mention of the earthquake existing anywhere despite the consensus of the closed afd. The only discussion we've had on this article is in the edit comments. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I think that prose of the article should include mention of the event since it did garner widespread coverage. The list of events on the article may not be the best way to incorporate the earthquake, but an editor could turn the list into prose. I don't have confidence I could do that without the other user reverting the edit. Eastern Tennessee seismic zone discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Johanna Olson-Kennedy

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Filed by 96.36.47.50 on 09:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute Johanna Olson-Kennedy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Usr Trj (talk · contribs) Esqueer (talk · contribs) Dispute overview This WP:BLP article has a controversy section. The controversy is about a scientific study that the author did not publish because she was worried about the interpretation of the findings, according to a NYTimes article. The following passage is what drives the dispute: The study was part of a larger NIH-funded project studying the impact of gender-affirming care on transgender youth. There was also 28 other peer-reviewed studies for the project that were published, many of which were co-authored by Olson-Kennedy and showed positive results from puberty blockers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johanna_Olson-Kennedy#Controversy I claim that this is not part of the controversy (because it is not controversial that other studies were published) and should be removed, while other editors claim it is part of the controversy and should remain. I claim that digging into the results of the studies constitutes original research, as I believe it was done in order to characterize the results as "positive", because this characterization is not part of the NYTimes article, but rather appears to be a personal assessment. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? On Oct 24, I opened a section on the talk page at [2]. The discussion has come at a standstill, there is no response from the other parties and we are still in disagreement over the content. How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Clarify if the contentious passage should remain or be removed. Summary of dispute by Usr Trj I believe that it's worth mentioning the results of the other studies since the unpublished study was only one part of a larger project and many of the other studies that were apart of this project were published and showed different results than the one that wasn't published. A big part of the controversy was the fact that the unpublished study showed negative results and was believed to be purposely suppressed because of that. So I think it's worth mentioning that other studies in this project which were published did not show negative results like the unpublished one. This is confirmed in the New York Times article which is currently the main source for the section. I also agree with User:Esqueer that removing the passage will create the impression that no research from this specific project was published at all. Since controversy centers on the fact that a study wasn't published, it should be worth mentioning that other studies in the project it is apart of were published as this is important context. Usr Trj (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Esqueer NOTE the summary was written by me; I do not understand if this space is for User:Esqueer or for me to fill out. 96.36.47.50 (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Claims that removing the passage will create the impression that no research was published at all. Claims the material is properly sourced. Johanna Olson-Kennedy discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. References The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.