Talk:Canada–India diplomatic row

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Excellently written article! Very strong sources, keep up the good work.

Noorullah (talk) 07:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Restore

I restored the article per WP:CCC. Besides, no discussion has taken place here on the article's talk page since it's creation. Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Mfarazbaig, what does "rea" mean? And I'm wondering if you actually looked at the close: "Later comments also pointed out this content is already appropriately covered on other pages", according to User:PARAKANYAA. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  "rea" was simply a typo error for the word 'revert'. FWIW, that discussion closed as No consensus and not 'Oppose'. I'm also wondering what other pages cover the Background and Reactions section for the Canada—India diplomatic row that numerous sources have covered and as such is notable enough to deserve a standalone article. Anyone who disagrees should take this article to the AfD or first seek a fresh and clear consensus for redirection. Mfarazbaig (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@Mfarazbaig, you copied the entire 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row article created by User:Pirate of the High Seas and claimed it as your own.

1. Firstly, you need to explain why you copied and pasted the entire article as your own instead of restoring the original article. I also asked this on your talk page, but you didn't reply. You should have read the redirect comments in 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row, which was redirected, and should have been aware of the ongoing splitat the time this article was created. Despite this, you still created this article.
2. Secondly, most of the content is already covered in Hardeep_Singh_Nijjar#Death,_subsequent_diplomatic_dispute_and_criminal_investigation and Canada–India_relations#2023_diplomatic_row. Therefore, the split was also rejected. Despite knowing this, you still copied and pasted the article.

2402:A00:152:85D3:F40E:4A37:45B:2FD2 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't need to explain anything to a WP:SPA. Mfarazbaig (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The article must be kept as there are multiple sources globally that gave continued coverage to the diplomatic row. 39.34.148.132 (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 October 2024

Please retarget to the more on-point Canada–India_relations#2023_diplomatic_row, as I have done with Canada-India diplomatic row. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

Moved from Talk:Canada–India relations § NPOV

@राजकुमार: please explain your policy-based reasons for disagreeing with my edit, and be mindful of WP:ONUS ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney this whole article filled with Canadian allegations and you removed that part which Canadian government admitted that they don't have any hard evidence. I don't know which NPOV of you talking about. राजकुमार^(talk) 02:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The source that said that part was a misappropriation and omitted important context. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The Indian Express is an undeniably reliable source. You do not represent Justin Trudeau. He admitted just after the diplomatic tension of October 2024, so it must be included in the article. If you are aware of the context Justin refers to, then enhance that context with a reliable source instead of removing it.राजकुमार^(talk) 02:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

He is clearly talking about the evidence that existed during the time period between when Nijjar was murdered and when he went public with the allegations in October 2023, which makes it inappropriate to post in the section about the events of October 2024. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, from The Hindu, concerning your latest edit to the page: "India-Canada relations reached a new low after Canada, citing alleged involvement in the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar and naming them as ‘persons of interest’ in 10 investigations. Canada has expelled six Indian diplomats, including High Commissioner Sanjay Kumar Verma. In a tit-for-tat move, India too expelled six Canadian diplomats including the head of mission Stewart Ross Wheeler. Both sides have given time till October 19 for the diplomats to leave."[1] While this article does mention the conflicting statement India put out, it mentions this after it mentions that the diplomats were expelled. So this source doesn't exactly support the Indian narrative that much. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  13:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Alleging that a foreign government is responsible for killings in parliament without evidence is a serious matter. I didn't write that edit before, but I'm re-adding that part with your additional context. If you still think that some extra context is missing, please add it instead of removing the whole part. राजकुमार^(talk) 01:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence is evidence. Cremastra (u — c) 01:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The way I see it, this is the Indian press splitting hairs between "solid evidence" and "intelligence" so they can say "Ha, Trudeau must be lying, because of the specific phrasing he used. So there." I can't see how this opinion-pushing deserves mention in the article. Cremastra (u — c) 01:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence is not evidence. I thought Iraq war sorted this issue out. For now the perspective of both countries need to be mentioned and reasonable views have to be taken into account. When the trial begins in Canada and material evidence is presented then we can update this article again.

As for diplomats expulsion I stand by what I had said on Nijjar talk page that this was a tit for tat expulsion. there's no need to mention India withdrawing and Canada expelling. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The below paragraph ought to be changed.

"In September 2024, RRM Canada examined a number of Indian media outlets and named organisations such as Asian News International (ANI), WION, Aaj Tak, and journalists like Smita Prakash, Palki Sharma, and Anand Ranganathan and noted their potential influence on Canadian public opinion in order to promote narratives related to Justin Trudeau, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, and Canada–India relations. The report added the emergence of these activities since the Canadian government has accused Indian involvement in the murder of Nijjar."

On page number 4 of the RRM report https://foreigninterferencecommission.ca/fileadmin/foreign_interference_commission/Documents/Exhibits_and_Presentations/Exhibits/CAN025923_0001.pdf

"RRM Canada was not able to determine how many users in Canada consumed narratives from Modi aligned media. However, due to the massive digital footprint of many Modi-aligned outlets on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube - outlets like AajTak and Zee News have fourteen times the following of Canadian outlets like CBC and CTV News - it is very likely that both Canadian and global audiences who follow international news events were exposed to Modi-aligned narratives, themes, and stories on social media platforms."

The RRM isn't able to determine the extent of influence of Modi aligned media aka Godi Media in Canada. This should be mentioned and we can use use the RRM report and the paragraph that I mentioned as a Wikiquote. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Since we're mentioning Lawrence Bishnoi it would be appropriate to add Indian stand on this. https://www.reuters.com/world/india-has-26-extradition-requests-pending-with-canada-foreign-ministry-says-2024-10-17/

key part in the article is "We find it really strange," he said, adding that the RCMP was blaming India for the crimes committed by these people "who we asked to be deported, on whom we asked that action be taken."

India also accused another Canadian of working for the separatists.

1. https://theprint.in/diplomacy/canada-agency-says-it-found-no-evidence-against-their-officer-sandeep-sidhu-accused-of-murder-by-india/2326302/

DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney While I disagree with some of the edits alleged to be pushing a "pro-Indian narrative", I want to point out that it is unacceptable to cast aspersions in edit summaries, in what appears to be a preemptive poisoning the well tactic to dissuade others from adding content which you personally deem unacceptable. " More pro-India sour grapes" in your edit summary is one example. Antagonizing another editor off-wiki over a content dispute in which you were upset over editors supposedly pushing an anti-Canada narrative-[2], and edit warred with numerous editors over it is a far more telling, egregious example. This is nearing WP:BULLYING conduct, if not already there.

Secondly, you have to explain why you removed this edit-[3], in which you again included a unnecessarily anatagonistic edit summary, accusing it of being cherry picked and without evidence. Let me remind you that this setence was not written in Wikivoice, it was attributed to the envoy, who is a salient authority on speaking on Canada-India relations, and therefore his views have a right to be included. Self-defence and counter claims, even from those accused or convicted of a crime, are ubiquitous on Wikipedia.

Example: The Wikipedia page on Hardeep Singh Nijjar includes this sentence: In a letter sent in 2016 to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Nijjar called the Indian government's accusations "fabricated, baseless, fictitious and politically motivated" and part of a smear campaign seeking to discredit him. in which Nijjar is defending himself from allegations of his involvement in terror training camps, calling the accusations "politically motivated". It should be noted that the Globe and Mail, a Canadian news organization, corroborated claims of Nijjar's involvement in these camps through his Canadian associates.

The Nijjar Wikipedia article also balances opinions and the views of pro-Khalistan activists and Indian accusations and independent media analysis: the report states that although supporters of Khalistan say Nijjar "simply leaned heavily into the warrior imagery prevalent in Sikh culture," "interviews with people who knew Mr. Nijjar reveal he was indeed steeped in Sikh extremism," and that associates have further "not tried to hide" that he had "underworld associates.

But here, you're basically trying to muffle Indian viewpoints and opinions, even though they're directly coming from the expelled envoy , yet abiding by different standards elsewhere to aggrandize pro Canadian viewpoints.

It should also be noted that the recent Globe report also included a similar narrative in which Omer Aziz, a former Pakistani-Canadian policy advisor in the Trudeau government, stated that the Trudeau governement is heavily influenced by Sikh separatist voices, so the claim is not exactly far-fetched is it? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it not deeply ironic that this paragraph was allowed in this article:

In September 2024, RRM Canada examined a number of Indian media outlets and named organisations such as Asian News International (ANI), WION, Aaj Tak, and journalists like Smita Prakash, Palki Sharma, and Anand Ranganathan and noted their potential influence on Canadian public opinion in order to promote narratives related to Justin Trudeau, Hardeep Singh Nijjar, and Canada–India relations. The report added the emergence of these activities since the Canadian government has accused Indian involvement in the murder of Nijjar which is the Canadian government attempting to discredit the Indian media, even though they have an incentive to do so as they're a party of interest in this conflict, yet if a counter-claim is made from an Indian party of interest, it can't be allowed. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This post appears to be trying to accuse me of misbehaviour rather than improve the article, and ironically casts aspersions. I suggest a more appropriate forum for this such as my talk page. An article talk page is an inappropriate venue to air personal grievances, especially old ones. Please move the comments to my talk page or strike them. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  00:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point we need someone uninvolved with this discussion before things get nasty/off-topic. @DataCrusade1999 @GhostOfDanGurney @Southasianhistorian8 @राजकुमार: are there objections to me posting at WP:NPOVN? Cremastra (u — c) 00:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cremastra: I don't. But regardless, if SAH expects me to discuss content with them, I expect them to remove their comments about conduct which accomplish nothing but raise the temperature and distract from content discussions. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  01:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

There are pretty salient content related points raised above by @Southasianhistorian8: @DataCrusade1999:. I read it more as an effort to provide a balanced POV, similar to whats done on the Nijjar page, and less of a character assassination of @GhostOfDanGurney:. More broadly, for an article that is dedicated to a dispute between two entities, we barely mention India's concern about Canada's alleged enablement of Sikh seperatists. (It's briefly mentioned in the first paragraph of the background section, but with WP:SCAREQUOTES which really anyone can read as sarcasm) For what its worth, this is a fundamental part of the narrative mentioned in many western (since that seems to matter) reliable sources, including the most recent WAPO coverage of this issue. Schwinnspeed (talk) 14:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)