| Revision as of 13:34, 15 March 2020 editHzh (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers141,636 edits →March 2020← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:52, 15 March 2020 edit undoMopswade (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,966 edits →March 2020Tag: 2017 wikitext editorNext edit → | ||
| Line 91: | Line 91: | ||
| : The Economist did not say what you claimed it says. It did not say it was due to "factual inaccuracies", or that it was "controversial", this is something you made up. You edit on US also did not say "censor", again you invented that. Your edits suggest that you are deliberately introducing falsehood and bias into the article. ] (]) 13:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC) | : The Economist did not say what you claimed it says. It did not say it was due to "factual inaccuracies", or that it was "controversial", this is something you made up. You edit on US also did not say "censor", again you invented that. Your edits suggest that you are deliberately introducing falsehood and bias into the article. ] (]) 13:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC) | ||
| : The Guardian, the other source talked about "false rumors", which I used "factual inaccuracies" to repeat the word rumor which was already mentioned. Considering that both sources mention that he was widely mourned along with calls for free speech, and that state censors deleted posts about him, I would think that "controversial" is a reasonable claim for something that attracted massive international media attention. | |||
| Encyclopedia Britannica defines censorship as "Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law." As the source of that sentence suggests such a thing happening, I used this word to summarize such happenings. As people were "instructed by the White House not to speak out about the virus without clearance" and the NYT article referenced in the CNN article mentioned that the White House would "tighten control of coronavirus messaging", I think these fall under "suppression" and perhaps even "prohibition". ] (]) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:52, 15 March 2020
| This is Mopswade's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
Welcome!
|
Discussion at A
You are invited to join the discussion at A. V2lraXBlZGlhIEFkbWlu (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
New message from Mopswade
Message added 10:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
V2lraXBlZGlhIEFkbWlu (talk) 10:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
You are invited to join the discussion at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. V2lraXBlZGlhIEFkbWlu (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Template:Z48
March 2020
Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Your edits also violated the policy on neutral point of view and introduced bias. Hzh (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. As for the information you edited on Li Wenliang, the source I added（）did support the information I put in. The source said that Li Wenliang identified the coronavirus in his Wechat as "SARS", and leading to a warning by local police, as "he did not know whether is was actually SARS. He had posted it too fast", and "that was his mistake". Mopswade (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to mention, but I was under the presumption that The Economist is a reliable source. Please let me know if this is not the case. Mopswade (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Economist did not say what you claimed it says. It did not say it was due to "factual inaccuracies", or that it was "controversial", this is something you made up. You edit on US also did not say "censor", again you invented that. Your edits suggest that you are deliberately introducing falsehood and bias into the article. Hzh (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- The Guardian, the other source talked about "false rumors", which I used "factual inaccuracies" to repeat the word rumor which was already mentioned. Considering that both sources mention that he was widely mourned along with calls for free speech, and that state censors deleted posts about him, I would think that "controversial" is a reasonable claim for something that attracted massive international media attention.
Encyclopedia Britannica defines censorship as "Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law." As the source of that sentence suggests such a thing happening, I used this word to summarize such happenings. As people were "instructed by the White House not to speak out about the virus without clearance" and the NYT article referenced in the CNN article mentioned that the White House would "tighten control of coronavirus messaging", I think these fall under "suppression" and perhaps even "prohibition". Mopswade (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- "Li Wenliang died on 7 Februaryth". The Economist. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 13 March 2020.