| Revision as of 08:36, 6 April 2008 editPalaceGuard008 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,163 edits →Your edit on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:37, 6 April 2008 edit undoHelixweb (talk | contribs)1,064 edits →Your edit on Gedhun Choekyi NyimaNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| : So you're saying WSJ is not a reliable source? I think most people would disagree. In addition, WSJ is not the only source to report on the violent crackdown on Tibetans by the Chinese authority.] (]) 05:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC) | : So you're saying WSJ is not a reliable source? I think most people would disagree. In addition, WSJ is not the only source to report on the violent crackdown on Tibetans by the Chinese authority.] (]) 05:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ::Okay, don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that WSJ did not have a reporter there. There was only 1 foreign reporter there at the time and anything else is either A) Tibetan exile reports (biased), B) Chinese propaganda (biased) or C) or they interpreted James Miles improperly. WSJ may be a reliable source, but in this case, like many other "reliable news sources" that reported on Tibet, they changed the story a bit. Even if the change was minor, they paraphrased it incorrectly and changed the meaning of the reporter's statement. As I said, it contradicts with the statements by the few reporters who were actually there that was sourced later in the intro as well as many times throughout the article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ::Okay, don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that WSJ did not have a reporter there. There was only 1 foreign reporter there at the time and anything else is either A) Tibetan exile reports (biased), B) Chinese propaganda (biased) or C) or they interpreted James Miles improperly. WSJ may be a reliable source, but in this case, like many other "reliable news sources" that reported on Tibet, they changed the story a bit. Even if the change was minor, they paraphrased it incorrectly and changed the meaning of the reporter's statement. As I said, it contradicts with the statements by the few reporters who were actually there that was sourced later in the intro as well as many times throughout the article. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == Your edit on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima == | |||
| Please read ] and try to at least ''pretend'' to be neutral before you revert again. --] (]) 08:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:37, 6 April 2008
santa rita jail rules
whats edit warring ? Sickero (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Sickero, edit warring is what you and 74.228.158.68 were doing, reverting each other's edits repeatedly without discussing on the talk page or working towards consensus. If you guys both do that, the article suffers and consensus is never reached. In regards to the santa rita rules, if you have a source for it, I would definitely recommend putting it in, but I would summarize it, instead of just pasting the whole thing into the article. Thanks and please let me know if you have any other questions.Helixweb (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I understand, i didn't know it had a name. Sickero (talk) 11:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Assistance
Thanks for the quick overview. Regards, Rudget. 11:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Removing my edit in Tibet Unrest 2008
The source/info I removed contradicted info provided by Georg Blume and James Miles, 2 sources with direct access to info unlike WSJ who only interpreted what the said direct sources reported. The person who edited the original version removed the info sourced by James MIles and placed his own handpicked source. It contradicted with the info shown later in the intro paragraph, which was confirmed by another source. That's why I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.114.99 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- So you're saying WSJ is not a reliable source? I think most people would disagree. In addition, WSJ is not the only source to report on the violent crackdown on Tibetans by the Chinese authority.Helixweb (talk) 05:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, don't put words in my mouth. What I am saying is that WSJ did not have a reporter there. There was only 1 foreign reporter there at the time and anything else is either A) Tibetan exile reports (biased), B) Chinese propaganda (biased) or C) or they interpreted James Miles improperly. WSJ may be a reliable source, but in this case, like many other "reliable news sources" that reported on Tibet, they changed the story a bit. Even if the change was minor, they paraphrased it incorrectly and changed the meaning of the reporter's statement. As I said, it contradicts with the statements by the few reporters who were actually there that was sourced later in the intro as well as many times throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.224.102 (talk) 03:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)