User talk:161.8.184.61

Source misrepresentation

The UN source that you added clearly states: "JUAN ISIDRO MARTINEZ ( Dominican Republic), speaking on the behalf of the Rio Group, reiterated the Group’s support for the process of decolonization and the right to self-determination." Did you miss that part too (like you did yesterday when you misrepresented the UN sources with regard to China's position)? M.Bitton (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Because Dominica initially supported SADR, and it is not surprising that it supported self-determination. Later, it moved closer to Morocco. Doesn’t the brown shading also show the withdrawal of support? It is not inconsistent with the later support for Morocco, and reflects the overall situation. 161.8.184.61 (talk) 13:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

And I did not distort China's position as you said. The 2021 resolution seems to be led by the United States. As far as I know, Algeria is strongly opposed to it. Algeria believes that it is not a party to the dispute, and China has never been in Western Sahara. I have made it clear on the issue that the word "fair and impartial" has always been used. This is different from Russia's pro-Algeria. Russia expressed dissatisfaction and abstained from voting, while China generally has nothing to do with matters in distant regions. The South China Sea and Taiwan are more important. 161.8.184.61 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding a source that says "a" to support a statement that says "b" is the very definition of source misrepresentation (no idea where you got the so-called "withdrawal" from). You can deny it all you want, but that's exactly what you also did to China's position by carefully crafting your WP:OR and adding a UN source (that says something else) to support it.

Another thing that I also highlighted on the article's talk page is your persistence is to use crappy sources, despite being reminded multiple times about the consensus. M.Bitton (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

You are ridiculous, most of these sources existed before, and I didn't add them. The earliest may have existed 10 years ago. Contrary to what you think, I also replaced many third-party sources. The controversial sources are not the last ones. Is it not covered, but you are the first to blame others. Could it be that some of the later turns that previously supported sadr were fake? If it doesn't hold, then what are you doing with the brown shading mark? It's obviously the product of the diplomatic war between the two sides using money. What's so strange about countries switching positions? Peru and other countries have repeatedly turned around. 161.8.184.61 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Insulting me doesn't change the fact that you misrepresented the sources twice. When you restore something that was deleted, you take full responsibility for it. I'm not interested in your OR. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleting is the easiest, just empty the document and there is no dispute, you have prejudice and cannot discuss harmoniously, and preconceived blame others, too disappointed with Wikipedia, no wonder China blocked it, boring 161.8.184.61 (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

https://www.spsrasd.info/news/en/articles/2021/10/31/36111.html You can look at Sahara's statement, isn't it true that the 2021 resolution is not good for Algeria and sadr? I'm not Moroccan, I don't need to defend them, I'm just interested in this issue, don't you know that Morocco's green march is also under the banner of "self-determination"? Every resolution related to Western Sahara has the word self-determination, what's special about it 161.8.184.61 (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Who you are where you're from is irrelevant, but misrepresenting the sources and pretending not to understand the issue is a serious problem. M.Bitton (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

拜拜了您内，不想再见到你们，有关中国的条目大多数也存在西方偏见 161.8.184.61 (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

---