Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NeilN (talk | contribs) at 20:27, 31 August 2014 (Reverted 1 edit by 71.110.129.100 (talk): His talk page. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Russian soldiers killed

I already know what's your personal take on the whole invasion vs not invasion thing from the discussion on the deletion of that article. But please keep your personal POV aside. The source is Russian as you say, but the number is not officially confirmed by the Russian government and the Russian government in fact denies the presence of any combat-engaged Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Also, the number was firstly reported/claimed by that non-governmental organisation which has always had an anti-Kremlin policy since the Chechen war and today even claims the number of dead in that war is double compared to the official figure. Besides, there is an editor who wants to fully remove the number and its source and I had to revert him twice today because of it. The word alleged was put there as compromise wording because of him. Also, you removing the word alleged makes it to seem as the figures are official and fact, which they are not. All of the figures that have been presented in the infobox on the unrest come from official sources of each of the combatants. While in this case, its a non-official source which is also in opposition to the combatant in question. So you see the conandrum. If you have some other word to put instead of alleged than go ahead and propose, but removing it entirely won't work. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I can say the same thing to you; "keep your personal POV aside, your take is obvious". Now that we've gotten the mutual recriminations out of the way, let's talk about the actual matter. Here's the essence of it: *it doesn't matter* whether the Russian government confirms it or not. We are not a press agency of the Russian government. *It doesn't matter* whether the Russian government denies it or not. We are not a PR company for the Russian government. We're an encyclopedia. *It doesn't matter* whether the NGO that reported the number - in your personal opinion - is anti-Kremlin or not. Finally, if some editor wants to completely remove the - reliably sourced - number, then the thing to do is not to try and accommodate their disruptive behavior but simply to revert him/her. If they continue, report them.

What *does matter* is what reliable secondary sources say. Is the source for the number reliable? Yes it is. Does the source say this number is "alleged"? No it doesn't. As long as we stick to reliable sources, we won't go wrong and in this case that means removing this WP:WEASEL "alleged".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I was not making recriminations, but stating facts. Second, I have never propagated my personal POV over a neutral POV. Third, the source, which is an anti-Russian government one, may be reliable in your personal POV but fact is again its an anti-Russian government one, thus not making it neutral. It can not be more clearer than that. You may choose to ignore what Russia says, but that is not a neutral stance which is required of us by Misplaced Pages. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged" certainly should not be used, and for good reason. Read WP:ALLEGED, for instance. Keep in mind that as long as you put in and in-line citation for the numbers, they have attribution to the source. Anyone can see the source and judge it based on its merits. One could also do something like (such and such estimates). There are many options, but "alleged" is the worst of them. "Alleged" as a word is legal jargon that isn't appropriate, which the Manual of Style explains. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf - You keep confusing primary with secondary sources. What matters is whether the secondary source is reliable and whether or not it actually uses the word "alleged". Volunteer Marek  20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And I will repeat again. That non-governmental organisation may be reliable in your personal POV, but its anti-Kremlin stance makes them non-neutral and that is undeniable. The fact the figure was relayed by the reliable Reuters does not make the claim itself reliable because Reuters simply did just that, they relayed what the anti-Kremlin source said. They did not present it as fact, unlike what you are trying to accomplish. If it was a Reuters journalist who said I have been able to confirm the deaths of 100 soldiers that would be another matter entirely. EkoGraf (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And I will repeat again. That non-governmental organisation may be reliable... - Ughhhhhh! You. Are. Not. Listening. It. Doesn't. Matter. Who or what. The. Organization. Was. It matters only if the *secondary* source is reliable. You are way into WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT territory, which, honestly, I expected better from you. *You*, nor I, don't get to interpret primary sources. We don't get to second guess reliable secondary sources. That job is for someone else, however tempting it may be to engage in it, on a highly visible internet project. There is room for editorial discretion, but this isn't a case of it. Volunteer Marek  01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No. That's not how an encyclopedia works. This is getting tiresome. We describe what secondary sources say. We do NOT throw about our own interpretations of primary sources *("How about describe the reports and their content"?). It's really, really, not that hard to understand. Also, how did you find this page?  Volunteer Marek  00:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And you, person who left the comment below, since I'm pretty sure you're a disruptive sock of some banned user, I'm removing your comment and please don't post here again. <comment below removed per WP:DFTT>  Volunteer Marek  01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)