Portal talk:Current events/2018 June 20

June 2018
=UNHRC edit= I've removed this news item of yours as it is too country specific, too inconsequential and has too little press coverage to be included in this article. Do not restore this news item until we've reached a compromise on this first especially as you've already been reverted twice here and here over this issue. Wingwraith (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, for more WP:LASTING, it's about UNHRC, not UNHCR here – I suggest to watch our typos. For more WP:GEOSCOPE, it's about China, the US, the UN and human rights on planet Earth. Couldn't be more geoscope. On WP:COVERAGE, there's the China.org.cn "official commentary" here, UrduPoint/Pakistan Point News here, Reuters via here, here and here, CGTN here, ... For your information, my add was supported by at least one other IP editor [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2018_June_20&diff=prev&oldid=846737710 here], after being deleted for the first (of three, not two) time(s) by User:他删之石, and then two times by [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=171.83.69.16 IP address 171.83.69.16], and finally by OP. Wakari07 (talk) 10:24, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GEOSCOPE applies, the withdrawal sparked international criticism so there's no reason why we need to report on just the criticism of one country (as was already pointed out to you here). It fails WP:COVERAGE as it: hasn't received coverage beyond the day that the PRC made its criticism and it violates WP:DIVERSE as all the other sources that you mentioned except for the state-run sources copy-edited the Reuters source. WP:LASTING still applies as you didn't even address that criticism and, moreover, WP:CONSENSUS applies since there's more people who agree with my edit to remove your news item than your edit to keep it (as you pointed out). Wingwraith (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The reaction by China is notable because they were the only reaction today. The other reactions that I found were from the previous day. The reaction is notable also because China is often called out for human rights abuses... and yet they remain on board, obviously deploring that the US quits yet another international forum. I think it's interesting enough to spell out here. On WP:LASTING, you can read for yourself, by clicking on the link, how it does not apply. I copy-paste for you: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Finally, you do not discern between consensus and vote. Wakari07 (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But that time argument is bullshit and you know it you would have itemized the reaction of other countries (and international organizations, like for example the EU) on the other days when they were reported but you didn't so by focusing on the reaction of one country your edit (for which there is clearer evidence of the inconsistency of your actions) still fails WP:GEOSCOPE. Nobody cares what you personally think about why the reaction is noticeable. You still haven't explained how it doesn't fail WP:COVERAGE whereas I have (it hasn't received coverage beyond the day that the PRC made its criticism and it violates WP:DIVERSE as all the other sources that you mentioned except for the state-run sources copy-edited the Reuters source). As for WP:LASTING, it isn't that's why it fails WP:PERSISTENCE and just use your common sense instead of arguing for the sake of arguing what lasting effect could a perfunctory statement like that even have. Wingwraith (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What about this and this? The first new source (from the 22th) reportedly shows that Sri Lanka is also deploring the US withdrawal (for reasons you can easily imagine). The second source, of course being an opinion piece, even suggests that China could in fact be happy with the move. Did you know professional mourning is a job in many parts of the world? Wakari07 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point, it isn't even about what other people reported it's what YOU wrote and how you wrote it. This hasn't made the news for days already, just move on from this at this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. Wingwraith (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, no. I didn't and don't intend to add my personal opinion on this. I only wish to note that China deplores something. I have no idea why you make it into something personal (again). Where do you suggest we go now? Maybe you can move on. Wakari07 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reverted this edit of yours for the reasons above and will report you to ANI if you do that again. You don't make a suggestion for a compromise and then unilaterally implement that compromise which is essentially restoring the disputed material that more people have decided to remove than keep (as you pointed out). That is just fucking ridiculous. I never said anything about your personal opinion on this I was pointing out (among other things) the inconsistency of your actions. You're free to disagree with what I've written and done, but as you're the one who is getting reverted and more people have disagreed with your inclusion of the disputed material, it's your responsibility to (properly) escalate the dispute resolution process. Wingwraith (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I deplore that silly nonsense. Wakari07 (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not needed for such a straightforward discussion to become so heated. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. It is right to say this is a terse statement by a single nation. It would also be valid to point out in response the context of increasingly strained relations between two of the world's biggest economies (tariff war, anyone?). I'm leaning towards exclusion but not by very much at all. More importantly, you're both good editors who are clearly passionate. Don't screw that up with hotheadedness. -- BobTheIP editing as 95.148.229.157 (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User 88.111.222.150 this edit of yours is confusing. What do you mean by "my comment"? Are you BobtheIP? If so how are you editing from two different IP addresses? Assuming that you are BobtheIP, I didn't feel the need to respond to your comment because you unambiguously said to exclude the disputed material ("I'm leaning towards exclusion but not by very much at all.") What is it that you want from me? As per the comment I've reverted the edit and would ask that you please do not restore it until we've sorted this out. Wingwraith (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * . Yes I am. I edit from two different physical locations and neither have stable IPs. I don't have enough of a technical head to explain further as I don't understand any more myself. I've been told one location has a connection that can be assigned IPs from different networks(!) which means just enough to me to be very weird. Anyway, I also explained very clearly that this is very borderline material one way or t'other. I restored on the basis that nobody seemed interested in disputing that but, if you are still here and engaged, I've no objections to it coming back out for now. My main concern was for it not to be removed permanently for an incomplete discussion that seems to have fizzled out. How would one acquire more eyeballs to cast their opinions, as we three clearly cannot come to a firm consensus and these talk pages are rarely visited (or if they are, rarely used at least)? Would that be RfC or is that only for big sitewide discussions? -- BobTheIP editing as 92.29.31.213 (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)