User talk:Volunteer Marek: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:35, 6 September 2014

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Gloucester, you may need to reread WP:ALLEGED, which counsels against use of the VERB allege and not the adjective "alleged" or the adverb "allegedly".Haberstr (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

POV tags should be removed NOT immediately, but after a civil discussion and attempted consensus

Volunteer Marek, please conform to Wikipedia policy regarding POV tags. The official policy is emblazoned on every such tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I will enjoy having a civil discussion with you and others at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_Russian_military_intervention_in_Ukraine#POV_tag_attached. Haberstr (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one shouldn't engage in spurious tagging of articles based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Putting in a POV tag simply because reliable sources don't reflect your world view is POV in itself. Volunteer Marek 13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek, please let's engage in discussion on the matter on the entry's talk page. That is the appropriate procedure, and it likely won't take more than a few weeks to reach a consensus, assuming good faith by all. Worryingly, however, I have stated numerous NPOV problems with the entry on the talk page, and you haven't engaged with any of them. Instead, you've issued a blanket and uncivil statement questioning my good faith. Please review, noting especially the passages on civility, in WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE.Haberstr (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I note you have removed a second POV tag, violating Wikipedia's explicit instructions again. Instead of censoring a POV tag, let's have a discussion of my substantive criticisms at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Media_portrayal_of_the_2014_pro-Russian_unrest_in_Ukraine#POV_tag:_entry_is_obviously_pro-Maidan_and_pro-Western_and_anti-separatist.2Ffederalist .Haberstr (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you're going to have to justify the insertion of the tag substantially before it can go in the article. So far you've only basically said that the article fails to utilize "alternative media" - i.e. non-reliable sources - and is therefore POV. That's actually turning things upside down on their head. Hence the tags are spurious. Volunteer Marek 15:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You can read the huge number of POV criticisms I and others have made at the start of the now two 'POV tag' discussions you have cut short, here: [1]. You do understand that you're supposed to conform to Wikipedia policy on removal of the POV tag, don't you?Haberstr (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

If you want to help, please remove sources like YouTube and replace them. Removing tags only hides the problems. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one sources where you're adding these spurious tags. If you want to help, you can start by not behaving in a disruptive and WP:POINTy manner. Volunteer Marek 22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

blogs are restricted from use as a reference of wiki

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/21/fascism_comes_to_ukraine_--_from_russia_122700.html

Thanks for respecting wiki policy against the use of blogs as references. --Russiansunited (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on who the author of the blog is: Cathy Young. Volunteer Marek 23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And oh yeah, that's actually NOT a blog. Volunteer Marek 23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for switching your position to "neutral" at the deletion debate, and for listening to what I've been trying to say. I know I've probably come off as a bit mad with regard to this whole business, but it just really rubs me the wrong way. I respect you as an editor, despite what it may seem, and I hope that I've made a fool of myself over the past few days. All I want is for us to have coverage that makes sense, and isn't a mess organisationally. If you haven't noticed, organisation and copy-editing are the most of what I do here, because I think they are important to the reader. Given that, all this PoV on every side feels like too much to deal with. Regardless, please continue to make good edits in this area. Yours are always appreciated. RGloucester — ☎ 23:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers from me, too, VM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you three getting all warm and fuzzy again!Haberstr (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue mission

Hi, Volunteer Marek. Would you please review my ageing DYK nom submission if you get a minute? I feel that after an altercation with a problem user in talk (long archived), it is now slated for oblivion like dozens of already abandoned noms since June 24. Thanks in advance for your help, Poeticbent talk 00:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard about POV tag removal

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here: [2].

@@ Line 45: / Line 45: @@
 Thank you for switching your position to "neutral" at the deletion debate, and for listening to what I've been trying to say. I know I've probably come off as a bit mad with regard to this whole business, but it just really rubs me the wrong way. I respect you as an editor, despite what it may seem, and I hope that I've made a fool of myself over the past few days. All I want is for us to have coverage that makes sense, and isn't a mess organisationally. If you haven't noticed, organisation and copy-editing are the most of what I do here, because I think they are important to the reader. Given that, all this PoV on every side feels like too much to deal with. Regardless, please continue to make good edits in this area. Yours are always appreciated. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 23:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 :Cheers from me, too, VM. --[[User:Iryna Harpy|Iryna Harpy]] ([[User talk:Iryna Harpy|talk]]) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
+::Great to see you three getting all warm and fuzzy again![[User:Haberstr|Haberstr]] ([[User talk:Haberstr|talk]]) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 == Rescue mission ==