Talk:Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections

Who reported on the 2019 allegations in late-2022?
I found this citation from The Globe and Mail but it says that the sources speaking to the G&M at that point didn't know about funding of campaigns, so I don't think it can be used for the first sentence. If anyone is aware of others, say so, but I think this particular aspect was only reported by Global News at that time. Seems important for the first sentence of the article. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be used at all. Wikipedia is not a repository for amateur original research projects. This is more the domain of investigative journalists. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You have made multiple edits now claiming that this reporting came from the The Globe and Mail. That appears to be wrong, and is not supported by the inline citations. Why are you claiming this reporting is from the The Globe and Mail?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's odd that you're not aware of the only news agency with access to these leaks, considering the large number of edits you've made to this and other articles relating to the supposed "infiltration" (which is not NPOV language to begin with). 206.45.2.52 (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have a source from the G&M which reports these allegations in 2022 and first hand (not just relying on Global News reporting) please share it here. I don't see it. The one above, is the only one I can find, and it doesn't cover the same allegations, as noted above. There has been other reporting in the G&M, much of it in 2023 (not late 2022 as the first sentence of the lede relates to). Perhaps, I am missing an article, but it looks to me that the firsthand reporting was from Global News to begin with, and then G&M broke similar and related stories in 2023. Happy to be corrected if I am missing something but I would need to see the specific news article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. It seems clear from the sources that GN broke the story, so it should stay that way. &mdash; Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Addition of Mulcair piece
Firstly, I want to start by thanking 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, ...". &#8213;  "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

 * 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. microbiology Marcus [petri dish·growths] 17:08, 19 April 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)  — Relisting. Safari Scribe Edits! 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)
 * 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.