Talk:Russky Bridge: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:31, 25 October 2012

Russia: Technology & engineering / Visual arts / Economy Start‑class High‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the economy of Russia task force.

Name

It's been officially named Russky bridge. --Гагыдза (talk) 05:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Page moved. Uncontroversial request to move from a descriptive title to the recently adopted real name.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); September 12, 2012; 15:20 (UTC) Bridge to Russky Island → Russky Bridge – Russky Bridge is a oficial name of the Bridge. Approved September 3, 2012. 77.35.35.147 (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

criticism

why is that everytime i see in a russia article there is a section for criticism even for projects to move the country forward??? So the bridge is useless for 5000 People??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3-C-gEdpKw

check out youtube and you will see the average day on this bridge, does this look like it isnt being used??? And its just some months since its open. Western media should look at them self they are full of debt russia isnt.--Shokioto22 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the country were moved forward within the original budget limits, then there wouldn't be a need for Criticism section :) At any rate, Wikipedia merely summarizes the reliable sources. The bridge was criticized; fairly or not, that's not up to Wikipedians to decide. It is, however, our duty to summarize those reports. Whether the entity is in Russia or any other country is quite beyond the point here; the only thing that matters is whether there are reliable sources to support the statements being made. The actual conclusions (such as "the bridge is useless", or "the bridge is very useful", or "the bridge is useful, but cost way too much") should be drawn by the readers, not by the editors.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 23, 2012; 20:04 (UTC)

-yeah but what you dont get is that the anglo american media is much more powerful in comparison to the russian media because america has obviously a higher gdp not to mention about the other us allies which are russophobic as well. BBC makes such article every day about russia. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral since editors have the option to write what they want if they can back it up with articles, but if they majority of articles out there are a certain view wikipedia gets influenced by the majority (which was established by money not neutral view). As i said america has the highest gdp in the world plus their allies which make probably half of the world economy. Its not about truth anymore but who has more power.--Shokioto22 (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 check out youtube and you will see the average day on this bridge, does this look like it isnt being used??? And its just some months since its open. Western media should look at them self they are full of debt russia isnt.--[[User:Shokioto22|Shokioto22]] ([[User talk:Shokioto22|talk]]) 19:55, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 :Well, if the country were moved forward within the original budget limits, then there wouldn't be a need for Criticism section :) At any rate, Wikipedia merely summarizes the reliable sources. The bridge ''was'' criticized; fairly or not, that's not up to Wikipedians to decide. It is, however, our duty to summarize those reports. Whether the entity is in Russia or any other country is quite beyond the point here; the only thing that matters is whether there are reliable sources to support the statements being made. The actual conclusions (such as "the bridge is useless", or "the bridge is very useful", or "the bridge is useful, but cost way too much") should be drawn by the readers, not by the editors.—[[User:Ezhiki|Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;([[User talk:Ezhiki|yo?]]); October&nbsp;23, 2012; 20:04 (UTC)
+-yeah but what you dont get is that the anglo american media is much more powerful in comparison to the russian media because america has obviously a higher gdp not to mention about the other us allies which are russophobic as well. BBC makes such article every day about russia. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral since editors have the option to write what they want if they can back it up with articles, but if they majority of articles out there are a certain view wikipedia gets influenced by the majority (which was established by money not neutral view). As i said america has the highest gdp in the world plus their allies which make probably half of the world economy. Its not about truth anymore but who has more power.--[[User:Shokioto22|Shokioto22]] ([[User talk:Shokioto22|talk]]) 12:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)