This page is part of WikiProject Current events, an attempt to expand and better organize information in articles related to current events. If you would like to participate in the project, visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.Current eventsWikipedia:WikiProject Current eventsTemplate:WikiProject Current eventsCurrent events
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Time, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Time 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.TimeWikipedia:WikiProject TimeTemplate:WikiProject TimeTime
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
[1]people will be wonder why canadian judge is involve if you just say us prosecutors is trying her and [2]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."
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)[reply]
I have remove the news item in wholle [3] till an agreement can be found here. Here is my preferred wording:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Tobby72: 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. @Wakari07: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Wakari07: 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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). @Waskerton: Please start using WP:COMMONSENSE. Also there are at least six errors in the English you use for the ICG blurb. You remember claiming it's ridiculous to do someone else's homework. Wakari07 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]