Talk:Canada–Saudi Arabia relations

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 Media copyright questions. --15:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Canada–Saudi Arabia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621232706/http%3A//www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/saudi_arabia_relations-en.asp to http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/middle_east/saudi_arabia_relations-en.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Baird comments and WP:DUE
Ok, I get it, Baird is a grade-a jerk. But WP:DUE and WP:NPOV apply. I am happy with your citation for his past history with Saudi Arabia, it's much more encyclopedic than alluding to Twitter ephemera, but a few things: A: there has never been a Stephen Harris government. B: Linking to Stephen Harper would be inappropriate unless he sticks his nose in. C: It seems like WP:OR to talk about Baird's business interests in Saudi Arabia without any reliable source to back that up. D: If you want to insert the narrative that there's a partisan feud between the Conservatives and the Liberals with the Conservatives using SA as a proxy issue to take shots at Trudeau, find reliable sources that say that. Don't engage in WP:OR Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * let's talk here and craft a passage together. Baird's response is notable, but your edits seem like WP:SOAPBOX and I want to make sure we document his response in a neutral manner. Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, see my new comment in the next Talk topic. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please help avoid an Edit War
This morning, User:Simonm223 added a section in the Canada's response section about a former Conservative government Minister who appeared on Saudi TV to criticize the current Liberal government.

Surprisingly, the original edit ignored the comment from a Middle East analyst who said, in the same article, that Baird was being a hypocrite, because he too had protested against Saudi human rights actions while he was the Foreign Minister. "It’s completely hypocritical; this was a guy who was extremely vocal on human rights [while an elected politician]". https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/this-has-not-been-a-good-hour-for-canada-john-baird-slams-trudeau-government-on-saudi-state-tv publisher=National Post

I added fully cited content, and User:Simonm223 has reverted much of my edit. ''16:15, 14 August 2018‎ Simonm223 (talk | contribs)‎. . (41,351 bytes) (-675)‎. . (Undid revision 854906092 by Peter K Burian (talk)''

My question is, Do we need ANY mention of Baird's appearance on Saudi TV? He was a Conservative Party of Canada Minister (now with business interest in Saudi Arabia, per the National Post) who is now criticizing the Liberal Party of Canada government. Are comments from a person such as this of value to an encyclopedia article?

Recommendation: I feel the entire paragraph should be deleted OR the Conservative vs. Liberal aspects should be included as I had written it. Thoughts from others who have worked on this article? Peter K Burian (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Peter, I actually started a thread directly above this inviting you to work here collaboratively to craft a statement that didn't violate WP:DUE or WP:NPOV. You will note I actually thanked you for replacing the citation after my revert, I just didn't want to leave in the obvious WP:WEASEL on the tv network or the frankly befuddling references to Stephen Harris - I suspect you meant Stephen Harper but we also shouldn't be linking him to this page unless he starts involving himself similar to Baird. Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for partisan in-fighting of any stripe; so while I agree that Baird's commentary, as a former member of parliament and as a member of the party that is currently the official opposition is relevant, I think we need to be careful how we frame it so that it is neutral and encyclopedic in character. Simonm223 (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC):


 * I did not notice your new Talk section, Simon, when I started my new section. Sorry. Here are my revised comments about all of this.


 * The content, including the missing citation, currently reads as follows:

Former Conservative Foreign Minister John Baird appeared on Al Arabiya television to comment on the dispute; he urged Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fly to Riyadh to apologize in person to the Saudi royal family.[45] Baird is now working as a consultant and has business interests in Saudi Arabia,[46] but in January 2015 while Foreign Affairs Minister, he had also protested Raif Badawi's case to the Saudis, specifically with Prince Turki Al Faisal, a prominent member of the Saud family.[47] Baird's criticism of the current Liberal government and Prime Minister elicited this comment from Thomas Juneau,[48] a Middle East analyst at the University of Ottawa: "It’s completely hypocritical; this was a guy who was extremely vocal on human rights [while an elected politician]".[49]


 * You had deleted the section that said that the TV station is owned by Saud family members, but I could live with that omission. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/this-has-not-been-a-good-hour-for-canada-john-baird-slams-trudeau-government-on-saudi-state-tv publisher=National Post And of course, Stephen Harris was a typo, I meant Stephen Harper's government.


 * My question is, Do we need ANY mention of Baird's appearance on Saudi TV? He was a Conservative Party of Canada Minister (now with business interest in Saudi Arabia, per the National Post) who is now criticizing the new Liberal Party of Canada government - and is called a hypocrite by an expert. Are comments from a person such as this of value to an encyclopedia article?


 * Recommendation: I feel the entire paragraph should be deleted.(talk) 16:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose deletion I disagree that the only options are to delete the entire paragraph or to publish it precisely as you intended. Nobody owns the collaboratively produced content of Wikipedia. As for my deletions, I can provide specific rationales for each: 1) Al Arabiya - The article mentions only a few paragraphs earlier, upon first mention, that Al Arabiya is a state-owned media outlet. Furthermore, we have a wikilink in the paragraph to the article about Al Arabiya. Adding in the ownership into that particular sentence seems an example of weasel words - a method of framing information in order to break WP:NPOV with a bit of cover. 2) Stephen Harris - No man named Stephen Harris has ever been prime minister of Canada. You inserted his name twice. As I've mentioned previously, I'm pretty sure you meant Stephen Harper, but there's no good reason to wikilink him in here. Unless he also appears on television asking Trudeau to apologize. Then that'd be independently relevant.
 * The specific context of Canadian politics, that we have these two powerful parties who often take blatantly hypocritical pot shots at each other may be a relevant subtext to these comments. But our ability to comment on that context depends on reliable sources pointing it out. I hope this clarifies my revert. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Support deletion of entire paragraph about Baird Since Baird is said to be a hypocrite and since this entire paragraph is really about Conservative vs. Liberal politics, I do not feel it deserves to be included in this encyclopedia article about Canada's relations with the Saudis. Peter K Burian (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a justification for this beyond WP:IDL and WP:OWN? Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Imo, we don't need a sentence pointing out Baird is a hypocrite since it's self-evident given his previous actions, and we should highlight the fact that he was part of the Harper administration since it's relevant considering the adversarial relations between the conservatives and liberals. The National Post reference which is already cited makes it a point to note that he was part of Harper's government. Baird's statements are also directly related to this dispute and his role shouldn't be deleted. That's about all I have to add to this. Elspamo4 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no attachment to the hypocrite quote. It could stay or go and I'd be unperturbed. I agree Baird's statements are directly related to this dispute and his role shouldn't be deleted. I'm more ambiguous over whether to include mention of Harper. Sure back-channel stuff is that this is all his little game against Iran being played out in back rooms, but I think we should wait until he says something somewhere to include explicit mention of him in order to avoid the appearance of WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks .... IMHO, If we retain the paragraph, I believe it should remain as is. The hypocrite quote is more important than including the Harper Government issue, since it is specific - does not require the reader to figure out that the Baird comments are hypocritical. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Simon: If I read this correctly, you and I actually agree that the paragraph is fine as is. So the question is, Should it be deleted? Peter K Burian (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

No, it should not be. Simonm223 (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)