User talk:JaredMcKenzie

Welcome!

Hi JaredMcKenzie! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:20, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essay - My working theory to improve Wikipedia

I have a theory that seems to be true. The current wikipedia article on (Political status of Taiwan) shows legal arguments to claim that Taiwan is independent. - their sources seem rubbish and low quality. They use Self published websites and primary legal documents which are not academic sources. One[1] don't even mention Taiwan at all and talks about legal cases concerning other European countries, such as the International Court of Justice's ruling on Belgium and the Netherlands, and are cited without any direct relevance to Taiwan, and doesn't even mention Taiwan once. And yet implies it probably applies to Taiwan without the source saying it. I believe that's original research or SYNTH to use an unrelated case and to imply if it works for one euro nation, it also works for Taiwan too. The standards for accepting sub par sources seem to be prevalent on THIS CHAPTER - [2] Seems There are way lower standards for such info despite they are easily proven to be one sided weak arguments. One makes an unclear argument that “Japan was not able to cast a protest as it was under military occupation at the time; however, it did not renounce its sovereignty over Taiwan until 28 April 1952.” That statement that Japan did not renounce its sovereignty over Taiwan until 1952 is not substantiated by credible academic sources and also does not even contribute to a sensical understanding of Taiwan's legal status. [3] All their sources are weak and far less quality than I ever use. Why is that okay - and yet despite my sources for counter-argument [4] - are far superior on reputation and quality - I am still asked to further meet even higher standards like peer reviewed journals. Why the double standards? Why is standards lower for one side but higher for other? I was wondering how the article was so imbalanced - and I believe I am objectively correct that there seems to be a double standard causing it. My sources are objectively higher quality. The existing weaker sources for counter arguments should not be treated as equally valid just because they support a particular narrative. There needs to be fairness when it Comes to sources. And believe the best way to resolve this fairly is through RFC or a neutral discussion, which brings in more editors to weigh in. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the Teahouse-- they seem like good sources that are being used correctly however I know very little about the matter in question and the extent of people's prior opposition. Apologies but I don't have the time to check those sources beyond that, other editors should do that on the page. Best of luck. Joko2468 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I really do appreciate you taking the time to comment here. :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 12:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :) Last piece of advice-- sometimes it can help to bat for the other team, there's usually a kernel of truth in other editors' positions so including their POV from a reputable source per WP:NPOV can go a long way to stabilising any additions you make. Joko2468 (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hello JaredMcKenzie! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How do you guys deal with it?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]