This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Qatar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Qatar-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.QatarWikipedia:WikiProject QatarTemplate:WikiProject QatarQatar articles
2023 Qatar espionage case is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
espionage,
intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, or contribute to the
discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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.
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)reply
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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? VRtalk19:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Based on the sources I cited above, most sources use the following terms in the title: "Indians", "spying"/"espionage", "Qatar". VRtalk16:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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 of
WP policies). Edits such as
these are an example of persistent reverts of
NPOVing by other editors.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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). VRtalk21:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply