Portal talk:Current events/2018 December 11

Meng blurb
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2018_December_11&type=revision&diff=873282202&oldid=873281058] people will be wonder why canadian judge is involve if you just say us prosecutors is trying her and [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2018_December_11&diff=next&oldid=873287501] corrected Meng story: source writes, "awaits possible extradition to the United States on fraud charges" and "The U.S. has accused Meng of repeatedly lying to financial institutions about the relationship between Huawei and a company called Skycom, which it says did business in Iran in violation of international sanctions."

The Canadian judge is involved in the arrest and possible extradition. Source says "Gibb-Carsley, acting for the U.S." See also the unresolved 7 December talk page where a third opinion is pending. Wakari07 (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * i have removed the background info wholy. the case is ongoing we do not need background info for EVERY news item that mention her. prevent further edit war and redundndayc Waskerton (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have remove the news item in wholle till an agreement can be found here. Here is my preferred wording:
 * Waskerton (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there is no link to a category or container article, the informative value of the blurb is more complete with a concise explanation to the reader of who Meng is and what the case is about. Wakari07 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This make no sense. The informative value is in link (detention of meng wanzhou) and main article (meng wanzhou) the link is related to. i repeat again we do NOT need every news item to mention background info the case is ONGOING. Waskerton (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * #Detention is a section of the Meng Wanzhou article: I'm trying to explain that that is not informative. Wakari07 (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wakari07. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dispute is between myself and wakari07, you have edit warred with me on other article before making your "consensus" an example of WP:HOUND and WP:TEND. Revert as such and your attempt to put this back in will result in ani. I have put the detention of meng wanzhou master link because another news item (detention of Canadian diplomat call michael kovrig) is reported by source to connect to it.  Waskerton (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * we're supposed to collaborate in a "somewhat pleasant" and constructive way. Please start to work on consensus. Wakari07 (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:TEND is not example of constructive editing or consensus. Waskerton (talk) 04:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, Meng is accused of conspiracy to defraud banks. Now there's even WP:Synth in linking it under a non-existent category through reporting based on two unnamed sources, with Reuters literally writing 'It was not immediately clear if the cases were related...' I wonder how far you will go! Wakari07 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * the conspiracy part is not important the main thing is WHY wnich ios for alleged sanctions violation. WP:SYNTH? Do not be ridiculous. I am not saying about the connection the article is. notice how you did quote the whole sentence: "It was not immediately clear if the cases were related, but the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver has stoked fears of reprisals against the foreign business community in China." even your #1 evidence of the article for disprove connection is weak when they mention meng's name. very deceptive of you to leave this out but i totally exepct you to do this after your terrible edit wars with me on other pages Waskerton (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But the conspiracy to defraud the banks is, in fact, what she is accused of. It's these banks who are at risk of (inadvertently) breaching the US sanctions, according to the prosecutor(s). You're amalgamating several things and misrepresenting them to the reader. The main thing on 11 December is that Meng was granted bail. And for the ease of reading: "who is Meng"? 1. She's the Huawei number two 2. She's accused of trying to rip off banks. Wakari07 (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not amalgatmate anything it is reported directly article her charge of conspiracy is FOR SOMETHING which is the sanction violation. as usual you just make something up and pretend it is fact. nobody care about small detail of what bank, who meng is all we care is the big event (she was grant bail on the same day a canadian diplomat go missing) and just the littlest of context for it. that is all. Waskerton (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * as usual you just make something up and pretend it is fact is WP:PERSONAL and WP:SYNTH. And to the point of this discussion: because something is happening the same day does not mean it is in the same category. Again, Mrs. Meng is not a category and her case or her arrest are not separate articles, let alone container categories (yet). Please start using WP:COMMONSENSE. Also there are at least six errors in the English you use for the ICG blurb. You remember [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilbur_Ross&diff=prev&oldid=872800615 claiming it's ridiculous to do someone else's homework]. Wakari07 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not make anything up i am reporting what the article say. Which makes clear connection between meng arrest AND thedetention of canadian diplomat kovar. so yes it does belong in same category they are clearly connect if you hav porlbme with that you ask the reuters people who write the article why they report it like that. On side note i add it is not a surprise you choose not to include it given your huge pov bias. Waskerton (talk) 09:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, in green (in my previous reply) is what you wrote, not what I wrote... it's NOT "clearly connected:" the article, I repeat, says it's not immediately clear if the cases were related, and now I'm citing Reuters. Again, misrepresentation... Wakari07 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, in green (in my previous reply) is what you wrote, not what I wrote... it's NOT "clearly connected:" the article, I repeat, says it's not immediately clear if the cases were related, and now I'm citing Reuters. Again, misrepresentation... Wakari07 (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)