I hear what you’re saying, but what do you propose instead? “Another Indian man has been murdered in Canada”? Is seems that that would kind of bury the lede, which is the implication of a connection between India accusing him of this and him being murdered. This seems like a difficult situation to balance, and perhaps there should be a different decision made in a case where someone is alive like your example, vs. this case, where the person is dead.
The video doesn’t describe him as an activist. The only thing we really know about him is what the Indian government has accused him of. So I’ve amended the title to make it clear that India claims he’s a Khalistani terrorist (and they also claim he’s a gangster for some reason?).
I hear what you’re saying, but what do you propose instead? “Another Indian man has been murdered in Canada”? Is seems that that would kind of bury the lede, which is the implication of a connection between India accusing him of this and him being murdered. This seems like a difficult situation to balance, and perhaps there should be a different decision made in a case where someone is alive like your example, vs. this case, where the person is dead.
“Another Canadian based Sikh Activitist Murdered as Indian-Candian Crisis Widens”
The video doesn’t describe him as an activist. The only thing we really know about him is what the Indian government has accused him of. So I’ve amended the title to make it clear that India claims he’s a Khalistani terrorist (and they also claim he’s a gangster for some reason?).
There’s no such thing as a Khalistani terrorist. Khalistani separatist or Sikh alleged to be a terrorist by Indian government frames it better.
Yeah, that works well, thanks! You got the job. :)