User talk:113.190.46.134: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Anotherclown (talk | contribs) →Casualties vs weapons recovered: new section |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
. |
. |
||
== Casualties vs weapons recovered == |
|||
Hello. I notice you have added similar statements to a number of articles, including [[Operation Junction City]]. Specifically "''However, the losses inflicted on the VC are debatable. The U.S. estimates were almost exclusively gathered by indirect means: sensor readings, sightings of secondary explosions, reports of POWs, and inference or extrapolation. These numbers are in clear conflict with the number of VC's weapons were captured by the U.S. (only 100 VC's crew-served weapons and 491 individual weapons were captured, a ratio of bodies were claimed to weapons seized of 5:1'''"[5] What is the reference for the assertion that the figures are debatable? The reference you provide (a US Army report on the operation) covers the losses reported by US forces and the number of weapons captured, but not your inference that they are inaccurate. Unless there is a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] which states this it likely constitutes original research or synthesis per [[WP:OR]] and [[WP:SYNTH]] and cannot be included. By all means we can include the reported figures and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions but we should not editorialise. I have removed this and other examples now as a result. [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 10:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:24, 27 November 2014
Đừng nghe những gì Cộng sản nói, mà hãy nhìn những gì Cộng sản làm!
.
Tsk tsk tsk misbehavior x2
.
Casualties vs weapons recovered
Hello. I notice you have added similar statements to a number of articles, including Operation Junction City. Specifically "However, the losses inflicted on the VC are debatable. The U.S. estimates were almost exclusively gathered by indirect means: sensor readings, sightings of secondary explosions, reports of POWs, and inference or extrapolation. These numbers are in clear conflict with the number of VC's weapons were captured by the U.S. (only 100 VC's crew-served weapons and 491 individual weapons were captured, a ratio of bodies were claimed to weapons seized of 5:1'"[5] What is the reference for the assertion that the figures are debatable? The reference you provide (a US Army report on the operation) covers the losses reported by US forces and the number of weapons captured, but not your inference that they are inaccurate. Unless there is a reliable source which states this it likely constitutes original research or synthesis per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and cannot be included. By all means we can include the reported figures and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions but we should not editorialise. I have removed this and other examples now as a result. Anotherclown (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)