User talk:Yura2404

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Yura2404. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

removing sourced content[edit]

I reverted your edit to Battle of Łódź (1914). It's not for you to say that a 1914 issue of The New York Times isn't a reliable source. Why? It's possible those numbers aren't really accurate but the newspaper qualifies as a reliable source and you have no evidence to discredit their claim. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris, I know that the New York Times a serious newspaper, but estimates of losses given the journalist based on reports from Petrograd. It is the capital of the Russian Empire. So you publish in Wikipedia figures published by the Russian army immediately after the battle. This is pure propaganda. The journalist clearly wrote at the article: All information on losses from the Russian army posts. Thus, biased estimates of losses: the losses of the German army were taken from Russian biased source during the war.Yura2404 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
First, you can't prove that based on what the source presents. Even if that were true, encyclopedia writers have no business attempting secondary analysis. In the absence of another source, a tertiary document (Wikipedia) has to rely on what reliable sources are available. Not that it matters, but that article needs more sources, not less. I'm not going to edit war over it, but I think we should stick to those numbers until we can get better numbers. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, see (Google Books) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to World War I" (year of publication 2001) by Alan D. Axelrod, Ph.D., Chapter 9 Duel of Doomed Empires, page 108, German losses 35 000 kia and wia, Russian losses 90 000 kia and wia. This book (author - Ph.D.) is without a doubt an absolutely reliable source compared to a newspaper article in 1914! And as you can see, the real casualty figures are quite different. So the message from Petrograd, which used a journalist in his article, were completely false. Yura2404 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
If you have a better source, add it; maybe bring it up on the talk page. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)