Talk:Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections/Archive 1

Archive 1

Trudeau sidebar

Should we include the Trudeau sidebar in this article? This article is noted in the "Scandals and controversies" section of the template. I added it a while back. I note the template is included in the other articles noted in that section (ie Elbowgate, Aga Khan affair, SNC-Lavalin affair and WE Charity scandal. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

No, the claims have nothing to do with Trudeau. This is more evidence of partisanship, by the way. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I would ask you to assume good faith, and that we try to focus on the article and its content. This is a scandal/controversy during the Premiership of Justin Trudeau and some of the content relates to him, what he was told, what he has said, and what actions he has taken. As noted, other articles noted in the template include this template in their articles, for what reasons do you think we shouldn't do so here?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but since Trudeau government scandals are currently listed on the Justin Trudeau sidebar rather than a "Government of Justin Trudeau" sidebar, the sidebar needs to be included. It would be disorienting to navigate here via the sidebar and then not have it available for further navigation. ScienceMan123 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe, I guess while the scandal/controversy articles include the sidebar, the "major event" articles don't, and some of the other articles omit it also. I guess just because it is included in the template doesn't mean the template is required to be in this article. Including it might help with navigation. The topic is not solely about Trudeau though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, most of the contents in the "Justin Trudeau" sidebar should probably be moved to a new "Government of Justin Trudeau" sidebar, since they refer to events related to the government that he leads, rather than to Trudeau himself. But that's a bigger can of worms that I don't want to get into. ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Section needed: Other alleged influence operations...?

Is the content of this section needed or helpful? I think it might be a bit too unrelated to the 2019 election (which this article is currently about). Even if the article is moved to a title that includes the 2021 election, as being discussed above, this might be too unrelated. Maybe some of it belongs in a background section at the beginning, as all of these allegations seem to pre-date 2019, but I am not sure they fit into the articles current scope (or its likely expanded one). Perhaps, it will be easier to make a decision though once the move discussion is closed.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there just wasn't any other article more appropriate in which to put it. I have created a new stub article Chinese interference in Canada and moved this section there. Please help contribute to that new broader article on Chinese interference in Canada if you have a chance. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pairing this section down. I think it may work better as a background section (feel free to change), though I think it needs to be reworded a bit to make clear where the claims come from. I don't think we should say this in Wikipedia's voice.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I like it as a background section. It could definitely use some rewording and additional sources (which could also be added to the new interference article). Happy if you want to take a stab at it, or I'll get around to it eventually. ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Photos to include in the Article?

David Johnston speaking at the Excellence Canada summit in 2012, while serving as Governor General of Canada

Until recently, this article has only included a photo of the Parliament Buildings. Recently, a photo of Johnson was added (see right). Frankly, I am not sure the one selected (of him giving a speech at a certification/awards event) is the best to communicate his role as special rapporteur, but perhaps we should be having a larger discussion about what photos if any are required here to summarize the content of the article. I guess we could include photos of Han Dong and/or Vincent Ke but I am not sure that would be wise, or help summarize/communicate the content of the article. Anyway, I though it might be useful to start a discussing about this.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I addded it. I deleted it. I honestly didn't think something as simple as a photo showing Johnston would be controversial and I'm really not invested in this article enough to start fighting over a picture just identifying the person who's the main subject of that section. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was hoping it wouldn't require a fight. I think it is likely appropriate to have a photo of Johnston in that section. I see we have various other options in the commons. I would think we would be best to use a headshot where he is looking straight on if possible. Might be harder than I though to find an appropriate one though. Ones where he is at celebrations and smiling might not be the best choice to communicate his role here in what is meant to be a somewhat serious investigation. We don't want to communicate that he is taking the role lightly by virtue of our choice of picture (from a more lively awards event etc). Mainly, I just thought it might be useful to start a brief dialogue about whether or whether not other photos should be used. Or only that maybe we don't want to include photos of those against which the allegations have been made (at least at this time).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Special rapporteur

That secion in this article is heavily skewed with an overload of information about Johnston's past associations with China, to the point it's repeating itself now. This is a problem an editor here brought to David Johnston, as well; where ongoing efforts have been made to keep some semblance of balance, while the editor keeps up his campaign of tipping the scales to one side. An associated discussion has been running in parallel at Talk:David Johnston#Removal of content relating to appointment as Special Rapporteur. ₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at tidying it up, removing some of the repetition and overcites. Hopefully it is a start.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Those were the two most obvious issues. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

If we're going to discuss bias in the David Johnston article here, you have been sanitizing criticism of David Johnston since 2015 (see Talk:David Johnston#In response to "trivia" or "smear"), as part of your main focus on positively portraying the monarchy and associated officials. The article was very one-sided as a result. To bring it to a WP:NOV, it was in desperate need of the inclusion of critical media reporting and associated facts. ScienceMan123 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You're going to have a hard time finding a sympathetic audience to your complaints about my adherence to WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You're also convincing no one with the false dichotomy of "it's no criticism or every criticism everywhere from everyone all the time", as already tried and allready addressed at Talk:David Johnston. I'm certain you're aware of what balance is; hence, I'm certain you're aware you're tyring to tip it to express your personal beliefs about Johnston (quite possibly as a way to express your opinions about Trudeau). If you weren't so blatantly one-sided, we wouldn't be having this conversation. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

You claim that you adhere to WP:NPOV and yet act in the exact opposite manner by militantly sanitizing articles on the monarchy and related officials. Talk about blatantly one-sided. Then, when challenged, rather than discussing content, you launch into personal attacks and make false accusations. In this case you seem to have moved on now to false accusations of WP:OR, even though I have not posted a single piece of original research or content that was not properly and extensively sourced.

Do you have a conflict of interest on these topics, or are you just passionate about defending the monarchy? ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's try to assume good faith and focus on content and building a better encyclopedia. The recent edits to this section seem to have improved it. Perhaps, it is at a point were the POV content tag is no longer required. Let's all keep working together.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's the goal. I've just gotten tired of the personal attacks and false accusations from another user. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling out your blatantly one-sided edits isn't a personal attack, no matter how many times you try to claim it is, nor how many times you try to project that one-sidedness back on me. All I've said is you overload articles with absolutely every bit of information, down to the most tangential details, that somehow links Johnston to China or criticizes his appointment as special rapporteur, quite literally to the exclusion of all other material (that is, you add nothing else; I will acknowledge that you let stay sourced commentary supportive of the appointment after someone else had added it in); I wouldn't say so if the proof weren't there to back it up. I only recently speculated on your motive; yes, WP:AGF and whatnot. But, sometimes the evidence starts to become too much to ignore. Regardless, there's always a WP:AN/I, if you'd like confirmation as to whether I've personally attacked you or not. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It would've been helpful (for Wikipedia, at least) if the prime minister had chosen someone, 'viewed' as being anti-Trudeau 'or' someone viewed as entirely 'neutral'. Anyways, good luck in ironing out any potential problems with this page. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit Miesianiacal. With that edit, is the section now written in a manner that addresses your WP:NPOV and perhaps WP:DUE concerns? Is there anything else we need to address?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm relatively certain I've read more support for the appointment. But, will have to research and I can only do one thing at a time! (On Wikipedia, anyway.) --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

One quibble: Given that the journalists critical of Johnston's appointment are no longer mentioned by name, to maintain WP:NPOV, the journalist in favor of his appointment should probably also not be named.

I also replaced "Johnston's other past efforts to improve Canada–China relations", with the more specific "establishment of Confucius Institute and Sino-Canadian College while serving as University of Waterloo president". I think this is the main other Canada-China effort that has been criticized, unless I have missed something.

Since his family's sentiments/connections to China have also been criticized in the news media, mention of that should probably be included as well. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think his daughters' education is too far, and just not necessary to make the point that some criticisms have been made about his connections to China or work on improving Chinese-Canadian relations. It may be appropriate to mention his academic work with Confucius Institutes in his article, but I don't think this is the right place for that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fair for this article. "Connections to China" would be appropriate instead as one of the points in the list of media criticism. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I have taken a stab at it. Hopefully this works.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I think that's fair wording. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

On the topic of journalist naming, do you have any objection to removing John Ivison as supporting the appointment by name? Otherwise we should probably at a minimum add back Andrew Coyne and Terry Glavin as critical of the appointment.

Also, I find that the current terminology -- "raising concern" on the one hand and "praising" on the other -- is unbalanced. "Criticizing" and "praising" would be more accurate of the opinions voiced and more balanced. Or "raising concern" and "voicing support" if we wanted to be softer. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly confident the section is balanced now. .....For now. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your edits to finish cleaning it up today. I was worried that we would be arguing about it again, but to your credit you left it balanced. ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2023

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 to Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. Consensus arrived at the proposed alternate title Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

---

2019 Canadian Parliament infiltration plot → Canadian Parliament infiltration plot by People's Republic of China – With reports of PRC infiltration during the 2015 and 2021 Canadian federal elections also being added to the article (and infiltration of party nominations occurring between election years), it makes sense to remove "2019" from the article title. At the same time, the article focuses on infiltration by the PRC, so it makes sense to add that to the title. Due to confusion between race and country, I prefer the lengthier proposed title rather than the more succinct and obvious "Chinese infiltration plot of Canadian Parliament". ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak oppose - Looks to me as though the reports on the 2019 plot was reported by the media (ie. independent source), while the thoughts of another plot in 2021 were proposed by the Conservative Party after their loss in the election. If other sources support the possibility if a plot in 2021, then I would support a move dropping "by the People's Republic of China" to be concise. Estar8806 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this request is premature, as I agree that the article is still light on the 2021 content. Much of the recent media coverage by the Globe and Mail has been focused on 2021 election interference, but this has not yet been added to the article. ScienceMan123 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Weak support - These allegations all came to public attention over a few weeks in reporting in the Globe and Mail and Global News. It likely makes sense to talk about them together, along with the investigations that are now underway, planned, and may yet be launched. That said, a major cleanup of this article is needed. I have mentioned the article on the Canada project and linked it on the relevant section of the 2021 election article. It was already linked to from the 2019 election article. Hopefully, this will bring additional editors here who can help improve the article. All of this said, I think a title like Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections is the way to go, despite its length. The terms "infiltration plot" is not how WP:RS have been describing this. Also it assumes the allegations are true, which we do not know to be the case.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I would support "Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections" as a title for the article. I believe the original title was meant to parallel the article on the "2019 Australian Parliament infiltration plot", but I agree that "allegations" would be more appropriate than "plot". Perhaps I should revise the move request. ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, I am fine with that. It might just be better to wait for a normal close though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the current title doesn't accurately summarize the issue. However, the issue seems to stem into municipal politics as well, reports of the Chinese Consulate in Vancouver interfering in the the local election there. Not quite sure how that should be included but the issue seems to go deeper than just federal politics, therefore I believe that should be somehow depicted in the title of the article if at all possible. Factchecker72946482 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Most of the reporting is about the 2019 and 2021 federal elections. I think these allegations about the municipal level interference in Vancouver could be mentioned here in passing without affecting the title of the article, it could also be addressed in the 2022 Vancouver municipal election article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that it makes the most sense to keep the article title centered around the federal aspect for now, since the current political scandal is mostly focused on federal interference. As long as the main focus of the article is on federal interference, I think that it is fine to mention related interference at other levels in passing.

Perhaps a broader title would be best, like "Allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian federal politics"? At some point soon I intend to add details from the 2015 election cash-for-access scandal, and the Wealth One funding scandal that occurred between elections, which would further broaden the article scope. ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. Most of the allegations have been around the 2019 and 2021 elections, and nominations and donations related to those elections. A title as broad as "Allegations of Chinese interference in Canadian federal politics" would capture any allegations made since 1867, not just these highly publicized ones in the Globe and The Globe and Mail. I think it would be a mistake to cast such a wide net. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I don't have very strong feelings about the title, so let's go with the previous suggestion of "Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections" unless there is any opposition. ScienceMan123 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• Not a fan of the current or suggested title in this RM. Both seem too sensationalist to pass WP:NPOV. Would prefer Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections per Darryl Kerrigan, since the bulk of the sources are about those elections. We could have a background section for earlier examples or perhaps a section for other instances that could include the municipal stuff. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
• Note - I have asked for a speedy close. It is likely best this article is moved to a title that includes the word "Allegations" soon.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
• Support - as apparently it's not limited to just the 2019 fed election. "Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections", is acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2023 (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.

Investigations by National Security and Intelligence Review Agency

We likely need to add a section about investigations by National Security and Intelligence Review Agency.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV, Original research

This article is presenting allegations about classified intelligence from unverified anonymous sources as fact. The entire article needs to be rewritten. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 01:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

While I don't agree, any concerns would partially be remedied should the article be moved to Allegations of Chinese interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections as I proposed above and is being discussed. You may wish to comment in that discussion. FWIIW, I have asked for a speedy close of the move discussion above. In the meantime, if there are specific portions of the article that you think need to be addressed, let us know what they are. While WP:BLP does not apply to this article, we need to be mindful of claims about persons. This article seems to identify the reporting in which specific claims have been made, but if you think specific changes are needed, please identify them, or alternatively you could WP:Boldly make them yourself.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with the three components of Wikipedia's core content policy. This article has violations all over the place. You've written as fact a number of unsourced allegations about beliefs contained in confidential intelligence files. Moreover, all of these leaks come from a single source (contrary to the now removed claims in the wiki article). Please maintain a neutral POV or I'll be referring this for administerial RfC. Wikipedia is not for political propaganda. Moreover, why does this article not contain any of the claims published in the Globe opinion piece by one of the alleged sources? 206.45.2.52 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that someone did remove "alleged" from some of the section titles, which I have reverted. I think that given that most of the reported interference so far consists of allegations, it is important to make this clear in section titles. We could also go with "reported interference" instead of "alleged interference", either way would be accurate. ScienceMan123 (talk) 03:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

"alleged" implies uncertainty. There was definitely an infiltration attempt, please leave it as is.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9253386/canadian-intelligence-warned-pm-trudeau-that-china-covertly-funded-2019-election-candidates-sources/ Gonestertruck (talk) 15:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works, and is clearly NOT NPOV. Please refrain from editing political articles on Wikipedia if you cannot remain neutral. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox 206.45.2.52 (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

We do need to note that certain reports are "allegations". There are different ways to do this, by using words like allegations, alleged etc. or simply noting that Global News or The Globe and Mail reported it. Where persons involved have denied the allegations against them we need to note that. While WP:BLP does not apply to this article directly, we must remain careful with content about living people.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The latter option is not equivalent to the former options. Stating that something was reported by the Globe and Mail is not the same as stating that those claims are alleged, come from unverified anonymous sources, and moreover, the major problem with this article is that it is presenting unverified intelligence as fact. Intelligence is not fact. Intelligence is unverified information. Thus, the entire article constitutes original research. Moreover, there are attempts to connect about 20 disparate pieces of reporting together to form an overall impression of a grand conspiracy. This is by definition original research and therefore not appropriate content for Wikipedia. I think perhaps ArbCom on a speedy deletion is needed, as well as sanctions for the editor Darryl Kerrigan who seems to be edit warring again. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because many sources can be found and included to support a certain idea doesn't make it OR. That said, if there are other sources that disagree or call such claims into question, NPOV would naturally dictate that everything that is reliable from both viewpoints is included. Also, you might be careful of your own behavior as you wouldn't want to be guilty of edit warring while accusing others of it. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 20:07, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

206.45.2.52 (talk), can you please explain this edit? You have reverted and removed a significant amount of sourced content without explanation. This appears to be continued WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour following the lifting of your one month ban. It has been reported to WP:AN/I.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm working on fixing all that as we speak. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 21:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

206.45.2.52 (talk), explain your edit and why you have re-added the Template:POV and Template:OR. Explain or these template tags will be removed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe I addressed anything that could have been seen as non-NPOV in my edits, but I too would like to hear what he thinks of the article now. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 00:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the justification for the OR and NPOV tags, and back-dating them to March? ScienceMan123 (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

See the beginning of this discussion section. The user originally added the tags in March and reinstated them via reverts more than once as they got removed. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

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. — Garrett W. {☎ ✍} 01:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

References