User talk:Simonm223: Difference between revisions

You've been lobstered!

Regarding this exchange, and because we haven't found any trout yet this year, I hereby whack you with this lobster. Fill yer boots, bud! Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinchy and delicious. (And hey, Mr. Seafood is just down the block.) Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've been meaning to tell you, it's MR (initials) Seafood, not Mister Seafood. I don't know what the MR is though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

And here I've been calling it Mister Seafood like a chump for a year! Simonm223 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You can add your own self-awareness template now

See {{Ds/aware}} - goes on the top of your talk page. I did have something I wanted to chat with you about - if you feel up to emailing me from my talk page, please do. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protests, Allegations of foreign interference

Allegations = a claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.

Therefore, an allegation made by RT or Sputnik need not be a ‘reliable source’; it merely needs to have been made. Unless the heading is changed to "Facts of foreign interference", I'm going to return those paragraphs you removed. Water-n-Sky (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

As non WP:RSes, their allegations are WP:UNDUE any mention. Simonm223 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to find allegations of foreign interference that are WP:DUE mention I suggest looking in the Chinese press rather than Russian pot-stirrers. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

So, are you saying that, because 3rd party views (like the Russian news media corps) are not important to tense political situations (like the HK event), they should not be mentioned in such articles? Am I understanding you correct like this or not? If not, then can you please explain it to me further, so I can learn and improve when editing other articles that might be politically sensitive in the future? Thanks in advance. Water-n-Sky 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm saying is that RT and Sputnik have a reputation, as outlets, of communicating disinformation. As such all they're useful for as sources is for what they, as bodies, say about a situation. And the opinion of two Russian tabloids is not significant enough to be due coverage in an article on Wikipedia except possibly one about the outlets in question. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically we have two options: 1) RT and Sputnik are the source of the "allegation" in which case they're undue because they are not a significant player in international politics. 2) RT and Sputnik are reporting allegations made elsewhere, in which case, they're unreliable because of a history of misleading reportage. Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you mean. Thank you!Water-n-Sky 17:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

NBC article on Epoch Times

You might find this article very interesting [1]. It goes into detailed coverage of ET from former employees, and its relationship with Trump. I've added some stuff into the article already.--PatCheng (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)