Talk:2023 Qatar espionage case

Requested move 26 October 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 2023 Qatar espionage case (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Indian espionage case in Qatar → Alleged espionage by Indians in Qatar – 1. No mention of espionage by Qatari side

1.a. No documentary evidence for espionage.

2. Term espionage largely used with alleged in WP:RS

3. Case relates more to Israel than to Indian, but Indians involved. User4edits (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 15:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - There is now a conviction confirmed by the Indian External Affairs ministry therefore the current title is accurate and sufficient. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oriental Aristocrat/Archive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Pirate of the High Seas, Hello, clear and concrete WP:RS requested on:

1. Conviction of what?

2. Confirmation of Indian MEA on what?

where "what" is espionage. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

AP, Reuters. You could’ve searched it up, y’know Aaron Liu (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

See below reply by Ankraj Giri, and to add to that Reuters saysNeither the Indian government nor the Qatari authorities have made the charges against the men, who are all former Indian navy officials, public. User4edits (talk) 05:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: Too verbose, does not address the fact that they were spying for Israel (why include reason 3?) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support - there is no WP:RS on the crime for conviction. The quoted source in espionage section(MIddle east monitor) is not RS anyway. see [1] and [2] for more on it. Also WP:BLP applies.

  Requesting more views on this. NPOV principle of Wikipedia is threatened here.

`~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 18:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ankraj giri Please see my reply above. Also, I’m pretty sure there’s no kind of speedy for moves. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Please provide RS for your statement (the fact that they were spying for Israel).

Reuters in your source link says - but Reuters could not independently confirm the charges.

AP says- India’s External Affairs Ministry said in a statement it was awaiting the detailed judgment in the case.

Meaning AP has not seen judgement or charges. See WP:BLP poorly sourced content is not to be used. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 19:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

• Move to "2023 Qatar espionage case". This does not give the inclination that the espionage is being alleged of the Indian government, but does give us a good "when" and "where" in the title. I think though if this story ends up growing in magnitude we will likely see the media cover it in ways that perhaps lend to better names, but I think "2023 Qatar espionage case" gives the best overview of the situation without causing confusion. DarkSide830 (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you determine a "when"? The arrests were made in 2022 and they were sentenced in 2023. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 05:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oriental Aristocrat/Archive. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Move to DarkSide's suggestion concise yet descriptive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support DarkSide per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT :abrupt conviction, only allegation and No evidence , also Term espionage largely used with alleged in WP:RS Mindhack diva (talk) 11:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Move to "2023 Qatar espionage case as per DarkSide, not changing the proposal for the sake of comments therein. User4edits (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support No published evidence regarding the involvement, topic is contentious and controversial too. The page maybe moved to something like "2023 Qatar Espionage Case". Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which do you support more? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

  Darkside's suggestion Thewikizoomer (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support move to 2023 Qatar espionage case per DarkSide380. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose 2023 Qatar espionage case as being inaccurate, not WP:PRECISE and not WP:COMMONNAME. Its inaccurate because the case started in 2022[3][4], not 2023, and may well last into 2024. Its imprecise because during this period there have been several other espionage cases involving Qatar. In March 2023, Qatar was accused of espionage against Switzerland and FIFA[5][6]. In April 2023, Qatar filed an espionage case against the UAE in France[7]. There were also reports in December 2022 (and other times) of Moroccan espionage [8] in the Qatar corruption scandal. Finally, every single reliable source I've read on this topic does mention "Indian" in the title. Even when I google qatar espionage (meaning I don't include "Indian" as a search term), every single RS mentions "Indian" in the title: Reuters, CNN, Voice of America, Times of Israel, AP News, Financial Times, The Express Tribune, Al-Jazeera, NDTV. So why are we trying to remove "Indian" from the title? VR _talk 19:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Because the usage of that phrase is confusing doesn't need to be in the title do disambiguate. You mention other Qatar spying cases, but these do not have articles. Either way, the title suggests that the spying was conducted by India, which it was not. I'd rather us focus on the target (submarine project) or what country the spying was claimed to be for (Israel in this case). The fact that the people in question were Indian nationals isn't exactly central to this case, and to my knowledge we don't tend to focus on the perpetrators in criminal cases unless the person in question being charged is a well-known person. And you can change the date if you want, but I think that's more important information then the nationality of the accused. DarkSide830 (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

  The most important consideration for article titles is WP:COMMONNAME. It doesn't matter whom you or I feel are central to the case, its more about how the RS call it.VR _talk 01:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  What do you think is the common name? There seems to be no same commonly used name so WP:NDESC is best. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Based on the sources I cited above, most sources use the following terms in the title: "Indians", "spying"/"espionage", "Qatar". VR _talk 16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• I support Alleged espionage by Indians in Qatar, if someone can provide RS that have disputed the conviction, as that title meets all the WP:CRITERIA. VR _talk 19:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Vice regent, you have two conflicting votes. In the one above, it says 'oppose,' and here it says 'support.' You should strikethrough one of your votes. 2402:A00:152:85D3:38E0:6C90:8F00:FE5B (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  They don’t conflict. They oppose 2023 Qatar espionage case but support alleged espionage by Indians in Qatar. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Correct. VR _talk 16:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Support 2023 Qatar espionage case as per dark side, aaron liu etc Cosmotech92 (talk) 00:40, 2 November 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.

Persistent POV edits by some editors

Some editors including but not limited to @Pirate of the High Seas are engaging in adding slanted/non-WP:NPOV versions with what seems to be an ulterior motive (given the repeated persistence and ignorance ofWP policies). Edits such as these are an example of persistent reverts of NPOVing by other editors.

Therefore, please discuss edits here before doing. Thanks, User4edits (talk) 03:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree, you should read WP:ROWN, cease from making any further WP:POV edits forthwith and WP:AGF.

Please don't engage in an WP:EDITWAR and propose the changes you want to make to the text along with WP:RS here. | Pirate of the High Seas (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Pirate of the High Seas. Thank you. User4edits (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

What NPOV is being violated? We go by what the majority of Reliable Sources state. Everything regarding them being former Navy has been published by multiple RS, and in the instances I looked at, it also included their rank.

All in all, it seems WP:DUE to me, but opened to other viewpoints, preferably from uninvolved editors of the article.

Awshort (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit conflict resolution and improvement of article

I suggest the following: From my 28 October edit=

• I removed ranks of persons involved in this case---because they are not serving in Indian Navy and were not working in Qatar as Indian Navy deployment.
• I removed frequent mention of Indian Navy Officers and replaced with Indian Nationals---because they were not navy men when they got arrested.

From my 29 October edit=

• I consolidated links/sources, meaning where one source was able to provide info about all of the paragraph's content I kept that source only.
• I moved some content from arrest section to case section because it was unrelated to the arrests and was more suitable for case section.

From @Pirate of the High Seas's edit[9] =

• Improvement in background section is good and we should keep that.

From @User4edits's edit on 28 october =

• we keep his improvement in reaction section as maintained by me in 29 October's edit.

`~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

A quick overview -

I disagree with your previous listed edits for both the 28th and 29th and support the previous ones.

Regarding the Navy edits, I support because we go by what the majority of Reliable Sources state. I did a quick Google search and randomly picked 5 of the listed news articles regarding this, and all stated either they were former Navy, or gave their names and ranks along with obviously stating they were former Navy.

Regarding the consolidated links; If I remember correctly you removed several links and used the government press release as a source, correct? We use various RS to support statements, and it's usually best to use multiples rather than a briefly worded press release. Not only that, the press release by the MEA was one of the only things that did not mention the ranks of the former Navy members.

Other users can chime in more in depth but I wanted to add a few things while on my phone.

Awshort (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You saying like my edit was hiding the fact that they were former Indian Navy men. This is totally wrong, Have you even read my edited version? What I am saying here is

• why we have to put their ranks in their names when its totally unrelated to the article!
• Do we copy paste whatever language and words RS uses?

You are in wrong assumptions thinking I am disputing their status as former Officers. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 20:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying and pasting any information in RS should be done in quotes to avoid copyright issues. But at first glance it seems relevant to mention the rank of those involved as it gives an indication of the allegations' seriousness (or lack thereof). VR _talk 21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I will stop and will not participate further. I have exams.

My last word of advice.

What is difference between a navy officer getting arrested and a civilian getting arrested. Let's learn from a diff example.

What is a Accountant getting arrested and the same person getting arrested on street.

1) when an accountant gets arrested -- It creates image that there is some fraud or accounting inaccuracies in his work

2) same person but as civilian getting arrested means he did some other crimes.

In both above sentence there is lot of difference in what POV is shown to readers. you don't say Accountant X got :::arrested in Virginia yesterday for beating Y. You say Mr. X!!!

Context matters when to use copy paste and when not to use it. So that you present NPOV not your POV to readers.

I) Qatar arrests Captain A, Captain B and Captain C for espionage

II) Qatar arrests A,B & C on alleged espionage charges. They were also former Indian Navy officers.

first one gives importance of them being navy officers. Second one gives importance to them getting arrested and surprise that is what this article is primarily about.

Lastly, Sourced content copy-paste. Why then we don't just redirect article to one or two holy source whose words are holier than an editor's judgment.

`~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 04:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what is being presented by multiple RS's as other editors violating neutral point of view by adding said material to the article, and seemingly ignoring WP:DUE. The sentence of the article, as it stands currently, states they are former Navy members, then follows the next paragraph with their ranks (again, as is presented in almost all RS currently). I can't imagine a reader coming to the page in the future and somehow thinking they were current military, when the preceding sentence makes clear they are former. Awshort (talk) 08:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, the RS [10] used in para quoting ranks of persons arrested has since then removed such reference in its page, does it still feel relevant for you to have it on Wikipedia? From the start I said we needed to focus on arrest and not their ranks, we have already mentioned their former affiliation in first para on article. Also The Hindu article has removed reference of their names in their article. We have WP:BLP for this same reason to protect living person's identity and dignity in real society, BLP says,

1. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page
2. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy."

I am not removing or editing wiki because of you and other editors raising objection to it. I invite comments from community. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 16:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is this page under full protection?

Black Kite, unclear why that is the case here. I see no explanation. Seems like overkill. Loksmythe (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Loksmythe: I've left a talk page message to point Black Kite to this question. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

A response can be found here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)