Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:50, 4 December 2021

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Lithuania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.

Excessive POV-pushing discussion of Lithuanian-Taiwanese relations in the lede (removed)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

"Lithuania-Taiwan relations are covered by a distinct article on Misplaced Pages, and discussing them excessively in the lede of this particular article is disingenuous and misleading." May I suggest a less-aggressive, non-accusatory tone towards other users ("disingenuous"). Lithuania-Taiwan relations should be covered in the present article to the extent that they caused breakdown in China-Lithuania relations, and how. It is hard to believe you having a fair stance on the issue (no POV) as you have deleted information in the present article but did not move it to the L-T relations article. "Potentially problematic" is not sufficient ground to go around deleting information. You have not established here on Talk how exactly that is problematic with certainty and with consensus from other users. The user stated that sources can be easily found, and my Google search brought a number of credible sources.139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Further shenanigans

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)

1. ...on unsubstantiated national security grounds.
2. ...an accusation that was not publicly substantiated.
3. ...spoke of unsubstantiated negotiations...

I quote: "blind, deaf and dumb". Are you sure you are familiar with Misplaced Pages policies of behaviour toward other users? AND you deny having a POV on this article? Adding or non-adding information to the article is not a necessary condition to judge you pushing a POV - your overall edit behavior points to you having one.139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

On Misplaced Pages we question governments and businessmen, and anybody else. I assume you have a POV that is aligned with the "claims made by the Lithuanian government or a Lithuanian businessman"? Are you editing Misplaced Pages on behalf of the Lithuanian government? The answer you seek is in Misplaced Pages policies: an unsubstantiated claim is one that cannot be backed by further evidence. Any Misplaced Pages user can call out unsubstantiated claims from Lithuanian, Chinese, Taiwanese or any other government.139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The following is a quotation from your Misplaced Pages user page (emphasis mine):

As another disclaimer, I am actually personally afraid of Chinese agents. Throwing around accusations that any random person is a Chinese agent might not be the wisest thing to do, but I have actually personally been advised by my family members, most of whom have differing views about China compared to me (they either have moderate views on China or they are highly nationalistic towards China; I'm the only real anti-China dissident in my family), that I should refrain from making "anti-China" statements online, or else I might place the lives and livelihoods of my family members in China in imminent danger. I have been told that Chinese agents may intercept my family members in China and interrogate them, confiscate property or even arrest and torture them if my dissident activities become too prominent. So, even though you, In wkpd, feel personally offended that I have, at times, addressed you as an "agent of the CCP", I don't think you personally understand just what lengths the Chinese government will actually go to in order to silence Chinese diaspora dissidents such as myself. Even if my own life is not in danger, my dissident activities can still legitimately place the lives of my family members living in China in danger. In fact, the main reason why I am pro-Taiwan and anti-China is that I know that my human rights will generally be respected if I ever cross the Taiwanese government in some way, whereas it is clear to me that the Chinese government would happily dispose of me if it knew what I was doing and had the chance to get its hands on me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you still claim to have no POV on the current subject?139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Stub-Class China-related articles
• Low-importance China-related articles
• Stub-Class China-related articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• Stub-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• Stub-Class Lithuania articles
• Low-importance Lithuania articles