Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:29, 26 October 2024

This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article was last assessed in May 2012. Canada: Governments Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Governments of Canada. International relations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Image copyright problem with File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg

The image File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Canada and India relation

150.129.164.18 (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

a question!

I added a paragraph here ↗ after Canadian reaction to 41 diplomat withdrawal. Do I have to reflect it on this article page or what to do. Because this page's 2023 diplomatic crisis section is getting particularly somewhat identical to 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨ 06:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

update=26 Oct.

I think we should summarize the section on 2023 Canada India dispute in this article to max 5-10 sentences and people interested to read more can go to specific article i.e., 2023 Canada–India diplomatic row. This will be more like encyclopedia rather than news article which updates with current happenings.

`~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 15:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Canada-India diplomatic row

I suggest it's time we WP:SPLIT this article and restore the Canada-India diplomatic row as a standalone article. The 2024 India–Maldives diplomatic row is a precedent for such an article. The subject of the article passes WP:GNG and has received WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE since last year. Keeping the content in this article will raise WP:WEIGHT and WP:TOOMUCH detail concerns. 119.155.181.242 (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I think content from Hardeep Singh Nijjar should also be split out into such an article about the diplomatic row for the same policy-based concerns as 119.155... points out here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, given the latest developments. This is something that can stand on its own. Currently the content is awkwardly split between this article and Hardeep Singh Nijjar § Death, subsequent diplomatic dispute and criminal investigation. Cremastra (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed to split. New developments are significant.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, given the issue has propped up again, been there for more than a year and has got sufficient coverage. The section had become more of a newsreel and had too much information, trying to balance information on the killing incident vs actual relevance to the relations (WP:TOOMUCH). Given that it is prolonging, it is bound to expand further. It makes sense to split.Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Support passes WP:N, so it's clearly time to just do it.  samee  converse  20:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I had a thought of doing it today, but the proper article title, Canada–India diplomatic row (with en dash) is fully protected due to someone repeatedly copy-and-pasting from Hardeep Singh Nijjar, which had a consensus to not split from that article at that time. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  23:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I've submitted a request at WP:RPPD. Cremastra (u — c) 01:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I Strongly support the split, as the recent developments and extensive coverage warrant a standalone article.®asteem Talk 00:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Support per above. — Ainty Painty (talk) 03:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Canada–India diplomatic row, the correctly-styled title (with en-dash), has now been downgraded to semiprotection. There being no opposition here, it should be fine for anyone to go ahead and do the split. I would myself but I'm about to go to bed. -- Tamzin (they|xe) 07:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

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 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 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." 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 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-, 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-, 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 Misplaced Pages.

Example: The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Start-Class India articles
• Low-importance India articles
• Start-Class India articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject India articles
• Start-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• Start-Class Governments of Canada articles
• Low-importance Governments of Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• Start-Class International relations articles
• Low-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles