Talk:Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections
(Redirected from Talk:2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot)
Latest comment: 8 days ago by Nicl0728 in topic Citations needed
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days  |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Addition of Mulcair piece
editFirstly, I want to start by thanking ScienceMan123 for the work he's doing on the article pulling the sources together. I do think though, that the addition of the Mulcair opinion piece amongst the other ones would need attribution due to his former position as leader of the NDP and that he isn't really a journalist but a pundit. I thereby propose changing the wording in the section Release of first report from "Journalists widely panned the report, ..."
to "Journalists and pundits, including former NDP leader Tom Mulcair, widely panned the report, ..."
. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- Good catch, thank you, I should have adjusted the wording. Your proposed wording reads well. ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 11 April 2024
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections → Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections – More WP:PRECISE title in light of recent events. Amigao (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 17:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NPOV. Cfls (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support. It is more precise. It's also consistent with Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections, Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections, Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum, Russian interference in British politics, and Russian interference in European politics. Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with other articles. The title comes from the CSIS conclusion, which is that there was Chinese interference in both elections. Pilaz (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Inclined to oppose per WP:NPOV, though I'm open to hearing arguments that the proposed title is neutral. User:Pilaz's comment above seems to amount to saying that Wikipedia should take the Canadian government's side in a dispute between the Canadian government and the Chinese government. But what is the Chinese government's side? From skimming the article, I could only find Canadian perspectives – we seem to be missing Chinese perspectives. That should be remedied, if we want to follow NPOV. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support, I see several people bring up NPOV but it's important to not create a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the claims of a top-down state acting in it's self interest and a open inquiry in a democratic State led by an independent judge. I also - like Pilaz - think there's no reason to depart from the Russian interference example. if anything, the claims there were just from the intelligence community and there was no inquiry, so the case for this rename makes even more sense. CASalt (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're saying that because of Canada and China's different systems of government, we should take Canada's side over China's. Is that right? I don't see why that would follow. I'm inclined to think we should remain neutral and not automatically accept either government's claims as fact. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- How would you then address the question of WP:FALSEBALANCE? - Amigao (talk) 17:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- It sounds like you're saying that because of Canada and China's different systems of government, we should take Canada's side over China's. Is that right? I don't see why that would follow. I'm inclined to think we should remain neutral and not automatically accept either government's claims as fact. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- Relisting comment: Relist; discussion of how this is presented by reliable sources would be helpful in ascertaining consensus BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support this is hardly just accusations anymore—blindlynx 14:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support as I think it's pretty clear it is no long just an "allegation". Masterhatch (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Citations needed
editHi! I think the information under United Front Work Department should be cited. Perhaps the newspaper about this would be fine --Nicl0728 (talk) 05:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC). Nicl0728 (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)