There is no prove that Salt Typhoon is linked with China's MSS, only statements in newspapers (which also lack information). I have read almost all references and couldn't find any original allegation that Salt Typhoon is a China's Ministery of Security State affiliation. So please if you think this is true, just link a reference to it that is not a dubious US newspaper. China deny that Salt Typhoon is linked with government[1], so the article looks like more a US propaganda. That's why I have changed "linked with China's Government" to "supposedly linked with China's Government". There is no reason to affirm that Salt Typhoon is linked with China's MSS because there is no prove beyon US allegations. Did you understood the problem? This, for the time being, is only a US narrative. You can't said this is "widely understood" or "weasel word" because this is what is not neutral and becomes disruptive. So the supposedly neutrality in this is being US narrative. Maybe expected, since wikipedia is from US. Uskpp (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- This statement is completely fine "The Chinese embassy denied all allegations, saying it was "unfounded and irresponsible smears and slanders" The issue is when you are saying supposedly linked, the Chinese Government can deny all they want. Our RS sources say it is linked. If you feel the source (Wallstreet Journal) is not reliable you can take that to the Reliable sources noticeboard.--VVikingTalkEdits 14:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- This opens a new discussion about Conflit of Interest guideline of Wikipedia. It is possible that the most neutral edit is the one that is not involved in the United States. Wikipedia guideline "Conflit of Interest" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Uskpp (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- That is a very different interpretation of COI regarding RS that I have ever seen. I have re-read the sourced articles, and I have changed the lead to more accurately reflect what the sources say. With using less of a Weasel feel than Alleged. --VVikingTalkEdits 15:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I believe I may not fully understand the linguistic weight of the word "supposedly" (English is not my native language), so the mistake might have been mine for using it. Here in Brazil, "supposedly" is a very common word, even used to refer to criminals who have committed a crime but haven't been found guilty by a judge. For example, *"A man supposedly killed someone"*, even if there's video evidence or if he admitted to it—we still say "supposedly" because he hasn't been legally convicted. My mistake. Idk the propper word isn't "supposedly". Uskpp (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
