Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Genocides in history (before World War I)	Closed	Jonathan f1 (t)	18 days, 5 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours
Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar	In Progress	Southasianhistorian8 (t)	13 days, 7 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	1 days, 3 hours
Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov	New	Trumpetrep (t)	2 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 hours
Jani Lauzon	New	135.12.162.209 (t)	2 days, 7 hours	2601AC47 (t)	2 hours	2601AC47 (t)	2 hours

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 00:46, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Genocides in history (before World War I)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Jonathan f1 on 20:17, 11 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 Genocides in history (before World War I) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs) The Banner (talk · contribs) Gawaon (talk · contribs) Cdjp1 (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The editor Cdjp1 has the Irish Famine listed as an example of a pre-WWI 'genocide' despite the fact that this is a fringe pov among academics. My position is that this topic belongs on the main Irish Famine article, and in fact there's already a detailed section there that covers the controversy quite well. Instead of participating in a dialogue on talk, this editor keeps expanding the section with obscure sources and in a way that seems to bolster the fringe view. It's been about 2 weeks since there's been any feedback and it's now clear the involved editors don't want to engage with this issue. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? [[1]] How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Ideally I'd like to come to an agreement on whether or not a genocide theory that's on the academic fringe and is more political than historical belongs in a list of historical genocides. I don't think so. Summary of dispute by The Banner Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. This discussion became a conflict due to the harsh words from Jonathan f1, including doubting that the added historians are worthwhile. My opinion is the same: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away. As I have no idea why I am involved in this dispute, as it is mainly a conflict between Cdjp1 and Jonathan f1, no further comment will be forthcoming from me. The Banner talk 03:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC) The tone of the discussion is often enough to blow up a disagreement into a conflict. And the "minor penalty" is not so minor as portrait by Jonathan F1. But I repeat my opinion from above: the genocide claim is very controversial, often based on political views. This controversy should be shown, not brushed away. The Banner talk 21:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Gawaon I'm not knowledgeable enough in this area, so I'll stand by. Gawaon (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC) I'll also notice, for what it's worth, that Jonathan f1 is permanently blocked from editing in the article namespace. Opening a dispute resolution case here might therefore be considered a case of bad faith. Gawaon (talk) 09:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Cdjp1 Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Firstly I would like to clarify that despite the insinuation, the addition of the great famine pre-dates my work on the article. As I detailed in the talk page, as part of my wider work updating the page with some recent notable publications, I was planning to update the section with recent literature. Jonathan highlighted some of the minor authors that have existed in the section for quite a while, while seeming to ignore the additional citations from respected scholars in the field of genocide studies where their assessment/commentary is published in RS. As per the criteria for the series of articles on genocides in history, they detail the varying frameworks used in defining and understanding genocides, and include various instances that are discussed within the literature. On the note of it being "politically motivated" descriptor, this argument is touched on in the section referencing Mcveigh, who highlights that at the time of his writing there had been near zero analysis of Irish history using analytical tools of genocide studies, and how the response of of previous historians who claimed the description of events in Irish history as "genocide" were responding specifically to popular claims by political groups. As has started to be shown, there has been more recent literature that analysis events in Irish history as potential cases of genocide. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC) For what little it's worth, I have no strong opinion on the specific inclusion of the great famine in the list. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 13:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Comment in your own section. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC) You just added the disputed content to the Great Famine (Ireland) article while this issue is in dispute resolution. Now the mediators can't see how that section used to read before you started adding content (check edit history). I opened a section in talk alerting the editors there that this issue is currently in DR and that you've added some of the content that's in dispute.Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC) As to moving information to the great famine article, despite Jonathan's characterisation, it is based on Jonathan's suggestion that the information be moved there that it has now been moved. --Cdjp1 (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC) Genocides in history (before World War I) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. After seeing the comments left by The Banner, who's quite concerned with my tone, and Gawaon, who brings up a minor penalty I received that's got nothing to do with this article, I think it's best these two not participate in the discussion. This should be about sources and rules, not personal critiques of me. The dispute was primarily between myself and Cdjp1 anyway.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Genocide) I am ready to act as moderator for discussion. Please read DRN Rule A and indicate whether you agree to the rules. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article, so I will ask each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave the same, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. See Be Specific at DRN. State in detail what you want to change about what is said about the opinions of historians on whether the Irish famine is considered to be genocide. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC) An editor who is blocked from article space but is not blocked from talk space or project space is in good standing to participate in a discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC) Zeroth statements by editors (Jonathan f1 and Cdjp1) I agree to all the rules, and I'll try to make this brief. The section in question contains a number of scholars who lack relevant backgrounds, and should be removed on the grounds that the theory's widely rejected by historians of Britain and Ireland. Neysa King was removed from the main Irish Famine article after myself and another editor realized she wasn't a professional academic (see talk). King nevertheless acknowledges that: '"Today, Irish and British historians categorically reject the notion that British actions during the Great Irish Potato Famine (1845-1849) amounted to genocide."'[2] Mark McGowan similarly notes: ""The fact that virtually all historians of Ireland have reached a verdict that eschews [the genocide] position, be they Irish-born scholars from Britain, North America or Australasia, has weakened the traditional populist account."[3] Cormac O Grada: "While no academic historian continues to take the claim of genocide seriously, the issue of blame remains controversial." (p. 4 [4]). Liam Kennedy: "“In the case of the Great Famine no reputable historian believes that the British state intended the destruction of the Irish people.."[5][6] In addition to King (who is still cited in this article), Cdjp1 cited a couple of genocide scholars (who study famines in Africa), two lawyers with no academic background in Irish history (as noted in the article on the Great Famine, but not in this article), and the lonely voice of Robbie McVeigh. Cdjp1 needs to demonstrate that this view is held by more than a tiny minority of scholars with questionable backgrounds, otherwise we are dealing with WP:Fringe. Just to reiterate my position again: Equating the Irish Famine with genocide is a fringe pov, should not be listed as an example of a pre-WWI genocide, and the recent additions Cdjp1 made to the Great Famine article in the genocide section (including linking it to the pre-WW1 genocides article) are undue.Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC) I don't know where to post a reply to Cdjp1, but I have to say something. Please read Mark McGowan's paper which explicitly argues against genocide. McGowan: "This paper argues that it is inappropriate to affix the label of genocide on English action/inaction during the period of the Great Hunger in Ireland." (p. 88[7]). The entire point of McGowan's paper was to defend the consensus pov (that it was not a genocide), yet he is cited in the article after pro-genocide content. McGowan's detailed paper also shows why it isn't enough to have a vaguely related background in "international law" or "famines" on continents like Africa (which is Alex de Waal's expertise). Scholars in genocide studies tend to specialize in specific areas, yet it is telling that not one of the genocide scholars cited by Cdjp1 has any background in Irish or British history. Rice and Boyle are law professors with no relevant historical background (as noted in the Irish Famine article), and Cdjp1's list is also padded with pseudo-scholars like Neysa King who isn't a professional academic of any kind (look her up). And finally, while Cdjp1 claims to have no personal bias, one does wonder why he's citing a source he hasn't read to defend content it explicitly rejects. My own view is that this matter is important beyond this particular issue, and goes right to the heart of how meaningful some of our core policies are if they can be circumvented so easily. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC) I stated what is present in the article, and I never claimed not to be biased. Please engage with what is actually written, instead of arguing about things that have not been written. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC) As to McGowan, that was an error grab in the quick response I provided, he is cited to support the statement that later genocide scholars have considered it genocidal. So claiming he is cited for pro-genocide content, is a misreading of where he is actually used in the articles. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC) On what page does he say "later genocide scholars considered it genocidal"? McGowan wrote a 15 page essay (not including annotations) arguing against the genocide theory, with over 80 references. He talks about the divide between professional historians, and amateur commentators like Coogan who push these genocide theories. I believe it was you who cited McGowan with no page number except pp. 87 -104, which is the entire piece. You should also cross out Neysa King, who is not a professional academic; Rice and Boyle, who are law professors with no background in academic history; and Alex de Waal, who's a "specialist in famines" but specifically in Africa. There are some editors on here who think that one historian is much like another, but Irish history (and British history) is a particular specialization and someone with a background in Africa simply isn't going to have the technical or textual knowledge to cover this subject accurately. Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC) Once again, my first point is to clarify that a claim that I added something to an article is plainly false. I did not add a link from the article on the Great Famine to the Genocides in history article. Scholars cited who argue it is a genocide in the article are as follows: Legal scholar Charles E. Rice is detailed in an article by Mullin, James V. (2002) in the journal Eire-Ireland: Journal of Irish Studies. Legal scholar Francis Boyle is detailed in an article by Mullin, James V. (2002) in the journal Eire-Ireland: Journal of Irish Studies. Boyle is a specialist in international law who has been a member of legal teams presenting cases of genocide in the ICJ. Historian Mcveigh, Robbie (2008) article published in the Journal of Genocide Research King, Neysa (2009) paper in the conference collection Re-Imaging Death and Dying Historian McGowan, Mark G. (2017) published in the journal Genocide Studies International. Specialist in Irish Catholic history - accidentally grabbed from the references in the article. Genocide scholar Jacobs, Steven Leonard (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in religious history, and the religious aspect of genocides. Genocide scholar Conley, Bridget (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in mass atrocities and memory studies. Anthropologist de Waal, Alex (2023) chapter in The Cambridge World History of Genocide. Specialist in famines. As Mcveigh points out (as is explained in the entry), while statements such as McGowan's on "virtually all" are correct, many of the arguments and historians have not engaged with genocide studies, it's tools, etc., and have nearly always denounced the assessment of potential genocide, due in part to the fact they were responding to activists and not scholars. As previously stated, I have no strong opinion on the specific inclusion of the great famine in the list, while it is in the list I will work to make sure it is appropriately covered with relevant sources. -- Cdjp1 (talk) 15:08, 18 November 2024 (UTC) First statement by possible moderator (Genocide) The article currently has four paragraphs on opinions as to whether the Great Irish Famine was genocide. The article clearly states that most scholars do not consider the famine to have been genocide, and a few scholars do consider it to be genocide. Please state concisely what, if anything, you want to change in the article. Please also state whether your opinion, if you want to change what is in the article, has to do with due weight, with the reliability of a source, or some other policy or guideline. Do not reply to the other editor. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2024 (UTC) First statements by editors (Genocide) First statement by editor Jonathan f1 The Great Famine section in the pre-WW1 genocides article should be completely removed on the grounds that most scholars don't regard it a genocide, and the few dissenting voices don't have any expertise in Irish or British history -so we're dealing with both due weight and reliability of a source. The list of sources supporting the genocide position is padded with two law professors, scholars with specializations in Africa and other continents, and one person who's not a professional academic. There's nothing stopping historians of Ireland and Britain from publishing in genocide studies journals, and in fact Mark McGowan did just that but only to refute the genocide theory. This theory is mainly political, not scholarly, and this controversy's already covered in the Great Irish Famine article.Jonathan f1 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC) Second statement by moderator (Genocide) The filing editor has been blocked from article space for four years. It appears that their comments in article talk space and in project space are being ignored by other editors, which is probably what can be expected. My advice to the filing editor is either to request to be unblocked in article space, or to develop a history of productive edits in article talk space and project space to support an unblock request, or to expect to continue to be ignored. The article currently has four paragraphs on opinions on the Great Irish Famine and opinions that the famine was genocide. One editor wants to remove the discussion of the Irish famine completely. The other editors have not commented. If there is to be further discussion, I would suggest that it be focused on trimming the discussion of the Irish famine to one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) If there are no further comments within about 36 hours, I will close this discussion as unresolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Second statement by Jonathan f1 (Genocide) Correct, and I've been meaning to make an unblock request but I only sporadically engage with Wikipedia these days and it hasn't been a priority. Editors who ignore the issues I raise in talk do so mainly for personal reasons (as we've seen here -my 'tone' is not to their liking) which says more about them than the quality of my contributions. Editors are not supposed to be using article space blocks to shoot down constructive editing suggestions in talk, but this is their go-to method of avoiding any engagement with content they may not want changed. The "opinions" that the Irish Famine was "genocide" come mainly from people who are not subject-matter experts. Genocide studies isn't an academic department -it's a program, and the scholars who participate in it have tenure in other departments and use their expertise to study genocides related to their specialization. There isn't a single Irish or British historian of distinction who believes the Irish Famine was a genocide, so there isn't any reason to list a fake genocide among a list of actual genocides, unless you believe that any accusation of genocide, however naive, belongs in the list (and if not, why's the Irish case so exceptional?). The Irish Famine article already covers this controversy and makes it clear that the consensus pov is against this position. But I do agree it's time to shut this discussion down. As expected, it's going nowhere.Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC) Second statements by editors (Genocide) 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.

Talk:Hardeep Singh_Nijjar

– Discussion in progress.

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

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://wiki.riteme.site/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 [8]

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)

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov

– New discussion.

Filed by Trumpetrep on 14:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Trumpetrep (talk · contribs)
• SchroCat (talk · contribs)
• Antniomanso (talk · contribs)
• NipponGinko (talk · contribs)
• Nikkimaria (talk · contribs)
• Gerda Arendt (talk · contribs)
• Ian Rose (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Several editors believe that Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov's article should not have an infobox. Several editors believe it should.

There has been a discussion where the consensus was narrowly in favor of an infobox. All attempts to restore the infobox to the article have been reverted, and attempts to engage infobox opponents in discussion have been met with silence.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov User_talk:Ian_Rose#Rimsky_Infobox User_talk:SchroCat#Rimsky_Infobox

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Well-meaning editors are trying to engage in a discussion about the issue. Several editors are not reciprocating and revert any attempts to install an infobox. The hope is that the Dispute Resolution process can engage reticent editors in an open discussion in order to create a consensus.

Summary of dispute by SchroCat

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Antniomanso

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by NipponGinko

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Nikkimaria

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Gerda Arendt

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ian Rose

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• Volunteer Notes - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages.
  • The usual way to determine whether an article should have an infobox is a Request for Comments, and there does not appear to have been an RFC for that purpose. If a dispute is opened here, it will probably result in an RFC asking whether there should be an infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. At the top of the article's talk page, there is a notice that says, "Seek dispute resolution if needed". When we hit an impasse, I clicked the Dispute Resolution link and followed the instructions.

If Request for Comments is the preferred method of resolving an Infobox dispute, should that header language be updated? Trumpetrep (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Trumpetrep - I have reviewed the header language, and there is no need to change it. It says to seek dispute resolution if needed. That page lists four ways of resolving content disputes and four ways of resolving conduct disputes. One of the ways of resolving content disputes is Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, which is where we are, and another is Request for Comments. You followed the instructions, and came here, and we sometimes either advise the editor to use an RFC or set up the RFC. The header instructions are correct. You followed the instructions. Do you want me to set up the RFC for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I defer to your judgment about the best way to proceed. No one has weighed in here aside from you.Trumpetrep (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Trumpetrep - The reason that no one else has responded is that you forgot to notify the other users, and I didn't tell you to notify them, because I didn't think that moderated discussion would be as useful as an RFC. I have prepared more than a hundred RFCs, so I would suggest that you ask me to prepare the RFC, but that is your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I followed the instructions I was given when I asked for the Dispute Resolution. I was told to notify the editors, and I did so immediately at the discussion page in question. That seemed like the correct way to do it. I apologize that I misunderstood the process.

When I saw your Volunteer Notes, I immediately notified all of the editors on their Talk pages. I am very grateful for your explanations. I would like to see if there is any progress with the current circumstances before requesting comments. Trumpetrep (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by volunteer (Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov)

I am ready to conduct moderated discussion if that is appropriate. My opinion is that the question of whether there should be an infobox for Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov should be resolved by an RFC. Disputes over whether articles on classical music and musicians should have infoboxes have been common, and there does not seem to be a project-wide consensus on the issue, so it is best to rely on consensus for each article determined by RFC. Please read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom decision on infobox disputes. If you wish to engage in discussion, please first state that you agree to the rules, and that you understand that infoboxes are a contentious topic.

The article currently does not have an infobox. In order for the RFC to be informative, a draft infobox should be provided for inclusion in the RFC. So if you want an RFC on an infobox, please provide a draft infobox for inclusion in the RFC.

Are there any other content issues? Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Jani Lauzon

– New discussion.

Filed by 135.12.162.209 on 18:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Jani Lauzon#Identity Fraud (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• AceSevenFive (talk · contribs)
• 135.12.162.209 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I am writing to request a dispute resolution regarding an ongoing issue with the editing of Jani Lauzon's Wikipedia page. The issue centers around the claim that Lauzon is Métis, a statement that is both factually incorrect and damaging. After thorough research and analysis of credible sources, it is clear that Jani Lauzon is not Métis, and she herself has admitted to this fact. I am requesting that the term “Métis” be removed from her Wikipedia page to accurately reflect this reality.

However, my attempts to engage in a constructive discussion with *acesevenfire* have been met with resistance, bias, and harmful behaviors that I believe warrant intervention.

The factual evidence proving that Jani Lauzon is not Métis nor Indigenous.

Wikipedia’s core policies, particularly those on verifiability and neutrality, are being asked of in this resolution

1. Factual Evidence that Jani Lauzon is Not Métis or Indigenous

According to the article published in The Walrus (2024), Lauzon's claim to Indigenous ancestry has been thoroughly questioned. It is established that Lauzon's familial background does not trace to any recognized Métis or Indigenous community. The article explicitly states that her assertion of Indigenous identity is not supported by reliable genealogical or community-based evidence(sovereign indigenous) Lauzon herself has admitted that her previous claims to being Métis were incorrect, and she has clarified that those statements were made when she was uncertain of her ancestry. This admission was noted in an interview with The Walrusand is also reflected in the correction on her own website, where she no longer identifies as Métis. These corrections, alongside genealogical records and the findings of reputable journalists, directly contradict the claim that Lauzon is Métis. Wikipedia’s policy on verifiability (WP:V) clearly states that only reliable, publish

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

I have asked open discussion in the process to getting edit made, and was told to open a talk page regarding so followed that instruction. The editor in this talk has not be open to my edit requests so far. This is the step I am taking now, (in part because some of the editors language has been racially harmful and i no longer feel safe proceeding in the talk without another measure in place) and because the change request complies with wiki standards and i don’t know how else to go about it.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I’m not very educated in wikis policies and processes, I have made a valid wiki request in compliance with wikis policies, I would like the edit be made. or support in navigating the procedure in ensuring that it can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.12.162.209 (talk • contribs)

Summary of dispute by AceSevenFive

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I have two main concerns with chronicling the accusations of Lauzon being a "Pretendian" as absolute fact: 1. The only reporting on it that I've seen derives from a single article in The Walrus, which didn't provide the records that supposedly back the claim that she isn't Métis. I've been informed that they're available on Ancestry (and I assume that's where The Walrus got them from), but I'm not sure if that would be a reliable source, and it seems improper to record things based on evidence not presented in our citations.

2. "Mixed settler and Indigenous heritage" is fundamentally what being Métis is. This self-identification is not meaningfully distinct from self-identifying as Métis; I suspect it was changed on her website in an attempt to mitigate the criticism. (I place no judgment on whether this claim is accurate; the Walrus article didn't evaluate her mother's heritage, only her father's, and the Walrus article didn't claim that she's lying outright about being Indigenous at all.)

I also note that someone on Reddit attempted to invoke WP:MEATPUPPET to get supporters for their side: [9]. I don't believe it was the IP user that's counterparty here, but I think it's necessary to note for a full account of what's occurred here.

I think the article as it currently stands (describing her as "Canadian" in the lede and leaving the Métis-related categories intact) is a fair splitting of the difference until we have more information from Lauzon. She's stated on her website that she intends to speak in greater detail "soon", so we can revisit once that happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AceSevenFive (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Jani lauzon has an extensive history of claiming indigenous ancestry through her father’s side exclusively. She has stated her mother’s ancestry as non indigenous. The walrus is a credible news source that has verified ancestry whether they chose to disclose those public ally or not.

The definition you provided doesn’t define the Métis who are a distinct nation, with language, culture and a birth place of origin. They are often wrongly described as mixed, but that is not accurate. There nation began in the red river valley and Métis citenzens are descendants of those people. There is much information on the unique heritage and belonging of the Métis. Jean telliet is a good start. Jani herself in the article states she is not Métis, you can infer reasons behind this all you like but it is a fact, by her own admission not Métis. This is my request to remove Métis. We’re not having a debate about redefining Métis that is not what’s being asked or necessary. The article is a relatable source on the matter, your opinions or guess on what is Métis are not.

Your response is just gatekeeping change and not responding to my request. The fact was clearly presented. Removing Métis is a valid request in alignment with wiki policy. 135.12.162.209 (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Jani Lauzon discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

* Close as Not here. Now. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon — Preceding undated comment added 18:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC) Reclining. And abstraining. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon

• This article had some issues. Myself and Pigsonthewing went in and I think resolved the major problems, which were that the article wasn't using sources right, and that it was stating her ethnicity in the lead on WikiVoice, which is not something we usually do. No one has yet expressed discontent with our revised version, so if that sticks, I think there isn't really a dispute. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:19, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Jani Lauzon)

I thank User:CaptainEek and User:Pigsonthewing for mediating in advance. If there are no responses, or if the only responses are agreement, I will close this case in about 48 hours. If either editor will wants moderated discussion, please read WP:DRN Rule D, and the policy on biographies of living persons and the ArbCom case on editing biographies of living persons. Then please state that you agree to the rules and you want moderated discussion. If so, please also state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor wants to leave unchanged, or what you want to leave unchanged that another editor wants to change. If you agree with the resolution, you don't need to post anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Now you can close this as resolved. And way way quicker than I thought. Also send the two a reminder about how to resolve disputes in the future. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 00:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)