This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism 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.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan 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.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers 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.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Some of the opinion or RSOPINION sources are unnecessary because more reliable ones are being cited. The same independent analysis was used to by Radio Free Asia and most of the English sources. Do not conflate them, which would be original research. Vacosea (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick solely to uninvolved WP:RS for cites regarding disinformation-related discussion involving the newspaper itself. United Daily News articles are not an uninvolved third-party WP:RS in this context so they have to be avoided. Also, reliable WP:RSEDITORIAL sources like The Economist can be used but they require WP:INTEXT attribution. See: WP:RSP. Amigao (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those were the actual UDN reports in question and added for reference. They are in agreement with the uninvolved sources. Vacosea (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why original research and unnecessary quotation were included in other parts of the section? Vacosea (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:OR as everything is backed up by WP:RS with additional WP:INTEXT attribution where needed. What exactly do you consider WP:OR here? Amigao (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From time to time you removed the word "likely" and wrote in Wikivoice. In fact, two news sources refer to the government statements as "could be". Only The Economist which is RSOPINION and Dotson, deputy director of a think tank, used "likely". Disinformation was suspected by government officials and Dotson only. Radio Free Asia and The Economist have not made that link or have only quoted government officials, so they should not be attributed as sources for that part of the statement. Vacosea (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to state it as "could be" in Wikivoice. Change made. Amigao (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source" applies to The Economist and Taipei Times. They refer to what the government officials said, but your statement makes it sound as if they had made their own determination. Vacosea (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation you restored is not minimal usage of copyrighted content and does not add to the understanding of this subject. The article already describes the quoted information almost entirely. Vacosea (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the quote from The Economist is probably the most succinct overall summary of the matter in English-language media to date. Amigao (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already summarized the matter using almost the same words, so the quote is not necessary. Vacosea (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the words used are different. It is entirely permissible to use a short quote. Also, what exactly do you consider WP:OR here? Amigao (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Short quote, not an entire paragraph. Vacosea (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not an entire paragraph. Check again. Amigao (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It had been more than an entire paragraph until very recently. Vacosea (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Diplomat article was written by a contributor. Can you explain why it is reliable, useful to include in addition to similar sources already present, and quoted without attributing the opinion to its author? Vacosea (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That particular article is an opinion piece. Vacosea (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an op-ed piece. "Contributing author" does not necessarily imply an op-ed. Also, it is cited in a sentence referring to "multiple commentators" which is exactly what it falls under. Amigao (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I placed that reference there because of this. Vacosea (talk) 23:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
