This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
China鈥揕ithuania relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that an IP user edited the lede in October to add some POV-pushing commentary about Lithuanian-Taiwanese relations without providing many sources (they did provide an SCMP source I believe, upon closer inspection, for one part of their edits). Lithuania-Taiwan relations are covered by a distinct article on Wikipedia, and discussing them excessively in the lede of this particular article is disingenuous and misleading. I've restored the article to the state that it was in before these potentially problematic edits. Further discussion is welcome. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC) I've just inspected the edit history even more closely, and it seems that the SCMP citation was already in the article before the IP user's edits. So, actually, they didn't cite any sources. I was correct the first time. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The user stated that sources can be easily found...鈥 You do realise that there were actually two distinct users involved before you, right? The first user who added all of the information in the first place hasn't returned to the article ever since they made those edits back in October. The user who restored those edits (and made comments in their own edit) was actually a different user. So, the user who made the comment
...a quick Google provides plenty of mainstream references to back up the text...is actually not the user who originally added the info, ergo, there is no direct continuity between these two distinct events. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 05:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
...you have deleted information in the present article..., my rebuttal to that is that the information that I deleted was unsourced and hence invalid from the beginning. If I had deleted information that had included sources, then that would have been a different story. By all means, you have your own right to restore this information, but you need to provide appropriate sources, and I strongly advise that you try to avoid creating a "synthesis" of information that you have gathered from disparate sources ( WP:NOR). If you are only interested in continuously brute-forcing information that I've already proven to be unsourced (I mean, just look in the article's history), then you are just beating a dead horse at this point, and we are getting nowhere. | When you say
...but did not move it to the L-T relations article., I must point out that the China-Lithuania relations and Lithuania-Taiwan relations articles are two entirely separate articles. Just because certain information has been removed from China-Lithuania relations due to being too fixated on Lithuania-Taiwan relations, that does not mean that it subsequently needs to be moved to the Lithuania-Taiwan relations article, especially given that the information was unsourced from the beginning. Each independent article should be researched and sourced independently. | When you say
The user stated that sources can be easily found, and my Google search brought a number of credible sources., I have already pointed out in the segment below that you always need to provide sources or else risk your edits being reverted. A user's unsourced edits will not be reverted 100% of the time, but whenever they do happen to be reverted, that automatically means that a content dispute has taken place, and a relevant talk section must be opened up to discuss the dispute (which I have indeed done right from the very beginning). As far as I'm aware, I've followed through with all of the proper procedures, so I haven't exactly done anything wrong in that sense. The idea that certain unsourced content is "easily able to be sourced through a Google search" is dubious, to say the least. If the information was so easily able to be sourced from the beginning... then why wasn't it? That just simply doesn't make sense to me. Your content is either sourced or unsourced. You can't say that it "could be sourced but I was just too lazy to source it". That's just unsourced information, plain and simple. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 09:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
A second IP user has reverted my edit (which itself was a reversion), claiming that my reversion of the previous edits was pushing my own POV. For the record, at this point in time, I haven't actually added any new material to this article. In any case, the entire point of opening up this talk segment was to discuss the reverted edits. Reverting my own reversion, refusing to use this talk segment, and then denouncing the validity of this talk segment amounts to edit warring ( WP:WAR). It goes without saying that the onus lies on the original editor who added new information to provide appropriate citations for this new information... It's not the responsibility of a subsequent editor to add citations for the previous editor's lazy edits. The information was clearly only recently added, so the argument of "consensus through time unchallenged" does not apply here. If you are adding bold ( WP:BOLD) information, you always have to cite sources or else risk your edits being reverted ( WP:BRD). It's that simple. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 09:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
In case it needs to be spelt out for the blind, deaf and dumb, here are some examples of edits made by the first IP user that can be considered opinions rather than facts, disregarding whether the actual facts that they added were true or not. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
...on unsubstantiated national security grounds.[1]
...an accusation that was not publicly substantiated.[2]
...spoke of unsubstantiated negotiations...[3]
These three comments in particular, which were added by the IP user without any citations, are evidently mere opinions. Who is the judge on whether claims made by the Lithuanian government or a Lithuanian businessman are "unsubstantiated"? Certainly not a random IP user, that's for sure. If anything was unsubstantiated, it was the IP user's own edits that didn't include citations of any kind. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
AND you deny having a POV on this article?. In fact, I've never actually denied having a POV on this article. Instead, I've denied the idea that I'm pushing any kind of POV. It is possible to hold a POV on an article without actively pushing it. Anyway, I think you do need to pay closer attention to the things I've actually said, since you've essentially been putting words in my mouth, quoting things that I haven't actually said. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 06:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
鈥 Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 10:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Avoid stating opinions as facts.
...unsubstantiated...that initially inspired me to immediately delete the unsourced edits without hesitation. I am aware that another possible route would have been to improve the edits rather than delete them outright. However, at the outset, I made the judgement call that the edits were biased and hence completely untrustworthy upon seeing words like that, which, from what I could tell, were an indication of an intention to subtly push a certain POV ( WP:NPOV). Notably, this Wikipedia MoS article 鈥 WP:WORDS 鈥 lists out various words or categories of words that might be regarded as subtly biased, even though they might be difficult to spot (hence "subtle"). | Regarding my own POV, I've actually never denied holding a certain POV, nor have I ever tried to conceal my POV. There's a reason that you were able to find "incriminating" evidence of me holding a POV on my user page... I wrote it out in the open. So, your accusation that I hold a certain POV is rather amusing since this is already blatantly obvious. Again, it's not a matter of whether I hold a certain POV but instead a matter of whether I am actively pushing a certain POV, which I'm not, given that I haven't actually added any new material to this article. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 15:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have removed two paragraphs for being unsourced. The policy is clear here: unsourced content that is challenged is to be removed. You need to provide reliable sources. intforce ( talk) 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to draw other Wikipedians' attention to the recent edit(s) of this article by [ Gerard]. On his Wiki hopepage the user confesses he has drawn flak in the past regarding his politically-biased editing. In my opinion, his edit of this topic was not sensitive to the best interests of Wikipedia readers (Neutral POV is more important than referencing a particular media source) and was biased (eliminated Neutral POV on the subject being addressed). 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 195.135.49.168 ( talk) 19:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I initially gave IP user 195.135.49.168 the benefit of the doubt both in terms of their disruptive edits on this talk page (including personal harassment against me) and their misleading content-based edits over at the main article corresponding to this talk page.
However, I've noticed in the recent edits (to China鈥揕ithuania relations) by IP user 195.135.49.168 鈥 which have since been reverted by Intforce 鈥 that they've not only been conducting blatant violations of Wikipedia policies (such as by removing properly-sourced content) but also spreading hatred and defamation against the Taiwanese people as a country and as a race.
I have already previously launched an administrators' incidents noticeboard case against IP user 195.135.49.168 purely in order to resolve their personal harassment against me; I wrote in that case that I only sought the removal of the personal harassment and that I did not seek specific charges against IP user 195.135.49.168 in terms of blocking them and such.
Given the recent obscene and disgusting behaviour on the part of IP user 195.135.49.168 in terms of their racism against Taiwanese people and their defamation of Taiwan as a country, I now intend to amend the conditions of my aforementioned case on the noticeboard. I am now seeking direct charges against the IP user 195.135.49.168.
There is still a chance for the user to redeem themself, and that involves their (1) immediate cessation of all disruptive behaviour, (2) immediate withdrawal from editing any and all articles relating to China or Taiwan or Lithuania, and (3) their immediate apology for their disruptive behaviour.
Note that none of these policies is enforceable by law... they are simply the conditions upon which I will expand my initial accusations against IP user 195.135.49.168 over at the noticeboard. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that the original ANI case is technically against IP user 139.47.34.245, not against IP user 195.135.49.168. However, IP user 195.135.49.168 has been linked into the discussion anyway because they restored the personal attack that was originally conducted by IP user 139.47.34.245. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 11:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)+
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
China鈥揕ithuania relations article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed that an IP user edited the lede in October to add some POV-pushing commentary about Lithuanian-Taiwanese relations without providing many sources (they did provide an SCMP source I believe, upon closer inspection, for one part of their edits). Lithuania-Taiwan relations are covered by a distinct article on Wikipedia, and discussing them excessively in the lede of this particular article is disingenuous and misleading. I've restored the article to the state that it was in before these potentially problematic edits. Further discussion is welcome. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC) I've just inspected the edit history even more closely, and it seems that the SCMP citation was already in the article before the IP user's edits. So, actually, they didn't cite any sources. I was correct the first time. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 21:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
The user stated that sources can be easily found...鈥 You do realise that there were actually two distinct users involved before you, right? The first user who added all of the information in the first place hasn't returned to the article ever since they made those edits back in October. The user who restored those edits (and made comments in their own edit) was actually a different user. So, the user who made the comment
...a quick Google provides plenty of mainstream references to back up the text...is actually not the user who originally added the info, ergo, there is no direct continuity between these two distinct events. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 05:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
...you have deleted information in the present article..., my rebuttal to that is that the information that I deleted was unsourced and hence invalid from the beginning. If I had deleted information that had included sources, then that would have been a different story. By all means, you have your own right to restore this information, but you need to provide appropriate sources, and I strongly advise that you try to avoid creating a "synthesis" of information that you have gathered from disparate sources ( WP:NOR). If you are only interested in continuously brute-forcing information that I've already proven to be unsourced (I mean, just look in the article's history), then you are just beating a dead horse at this point, and we are getting nowhere. | When you say
...but did not move it to the L-T relations article., I must point out that the China-Lithuania relations and Lithuania-Taiwan relations articles are two entirely separate articles. Just because certain information has been removed from China-Lithuania relations due to being too fixated on Lithuania-Taiwan relations, that does not mean that it subsequently needs to be moved to the Lithuania-Taiwan relations article, especially given that the information was unsourced from the beginning. Each independent article should be researched and sourced independently. | When you say
The user stated that sources can be easily found, and my Google search brought a number of credible sources., I have already pointed out in the segment below that you always need to provide sources or else risk your edits being reverted. A user's unsourced edits will not be reverted 100% of the time, but whenever they do happen to be reverted, that automatically means that a content dispute has taken place, and a relevant talk section must be opened up to discuss the dispute (which I have indeed done right from the very beginning). As far as I'm aware, I've followed through with all of the proper procedures, so I haven't exactly done anything wrong in that sense. The idea that certain unsourced content is "easily able to be sourced through a Google search" is dubious, to say the least. If the information was so easily able to be sourced from the beginning... then why wasn't it? That just simply doesn't make sense to me. Your content is either sourced or unsourced. You can't say that it "could be sourced but I was just too lazy to source it". That's just unsourced information, plain and simple. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 09:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
A second IP user has reverted my edit (which itself was a reversion), claiming that my reversion of the previous edits was pushing my own POV. For the record, at this point in time, I haven't actually added any new material to this article. In any case, the entire point of opening up this talk segment was to discuss the reverted edits. Reverting my own reversion, refusing to use this talk segment, and then denouncing the validity of this talk segment amounts to edit warring ( WP:WAR). It goes without saying that the onus lies on the original editor who added new information to provide appropriate citations for this new information... It's not the responsibility of a subsequent editor to add citations for the previous editor's lazy edits. The information was clearly only recently added, so the argument of "consensus through time unchallenged" does not apply here. If you are adding bold ( WP:BOLD) information, you always have to cite sources or else risk your edits being reverted ( WP:BRD). It's that simple. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 09:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
In case it needs to be spelt out for the blind, deaf and dumb, here are some examples of edits made by the first IP user that can be considered opinions rather than facts, disregarding whether the actual facts that they added were true or not. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
...on unsubstantiated national security grounds.[1]
...an accusation that was not publicly substantiated.[2]
...spoke of unsubstantiated negotiations...[3]
These three comments in particular, which were added by the IP user without any citations, are evidently mere opinions. Who is the judge on whether claims made by the Lithuanian government or a Lithuanian businessman are "unsubstantiated"? Certainly not a random IP user, that's for sure. If anything was unsubstantiated, it was the IP user's own edits that didn't include citations of any kind. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 02:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
AND you deny having a POV on this article?. In fact, I've never actually denied having a POV on this article. Instead, I've denied the idea that I'm pushing any kind of POV. It is possible to hold a POV on an article without actively pushing it. Anyway, I think you do need to pay closer attention to the things I've actually said, since you've essentially been putting words in my mouth, quoting things that I haven't actually said. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 06:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
鈥 Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 10:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)Avoid stating opinions as facts.
...unsubstantiated...that initially inspired me to immediately delete the unsourced edits without hesitation. I am aware that another possible route would have been to improve the edits rather than delete them outright. However, at the outset, I made the judgement call that the edits were biased and hence completely untrustworthy upon seeing words like that, which, from what I could tell, were an indication of an intention to subtly push a certain POV ( WP:NPOV). Notably, this Wikipedia MoS article 鈥 WP:WORDS 鈥 lists out various words or categories of words that might be regarded as subtly biased, even though they might be difficult to spot (hence "subtle"). | Regarding my own POV, I've actually never denied holding a certain POV, nor have I ever tried to conceal my POV. There's a reason that you were able to find "incriminating" evidence of me holding a POV on my user page... I wrote it out in the open. So, your accusation that I hold a certain POV is rather amusing since this is already blatantly obvious. Again, it's not a matter of whether I hold a certain POV but instead a matter of whether I am actively pushing a certain POV, which I'm not, given that I haven't actually added any new material to this article. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 15:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I have removed two paragraphs for being unsourced. The policy is clear here: unsourced content that is challenged is to be removed. You need to provide reliable sources. intforce ( talk) 16:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I would like to draw other Wikipedians' attention to the recent edit(s) of this article by [ Gerard]. On his Wiki hopepage the user confesses he has drawn flak in the past regarding his politically-biased editing. In my opinion, his edit of this topic was not sensitive to the best interests of Wikipedia readers (Neutral POV is more important than referencing a particular media source) and was biased (eliminated Neutral POV on the subject being addressed). 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 195.135.49.168 ( talk) 19:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
I initially gave IP user 195.135.49.168 the benefit of the doubt both in terms of their disruptive edits on this talk page (including personal harassment against me) and their misleading content-based edits over at the main article corresponding to this talk page.
However, I've noticed in the recent edits (to China鈥揕ithuania relations) by IP user 195.135.49.168 鈥 which have since been reverted by Intforce 鈥 that they've not only been conducting blatant violations of Wikipedia policies (such as by removing properly-sourced content) but also spreading hatred and defamation against the Taiwanese people as a country and as a race.
I have already previously launched an administrators' incidents noticeboard case against IP user 195.135.49.168 purely in order to resolve their personal harassment against me; I wrote in that case that I only sought the removal of the personal harassment and that I did not seek specific charges against IP user 195.135.49.168 in terms of blocking them and such.
Given the recent obscene and disgusting behaviour on the part of IP user 195.135.49.168 in terms of their racism against Taiwanese people and their defamation of Taiwan as a country, I now intend to amend the conditions of my aforementioned case on the noticeboard. I am now seeking direct charges against the IP user 195.135.49.168.
There is still a chance for the user to redeem themself, and that involves their (1) immediate cessation of all disruptive behaviour, (2) immediate withdrawal from editing any and all articles relating to China or Taiwan or Lithuania, and (3) their immediate apology for their disruptive behaviour.
Note that none of these policies is enforceable by law... they are simply the conditions upon which I will expand my initial accusations against IP user 195.135.49.168 over at the noticeboard. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It should be noted that the original ANI case is technically against IP user 139.47.34.245, not against IP user 195.135.49.168. However, IP user 195.135.49.168 has been linked into the discussion anyway because they restored the personal attack that was originally conducted by IP user 139.47.34.245. Jargo Nautilus ( talk) 11:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)+