Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 320:
::::I tried to raise the issue in the discussion while there is cold silence. Without waiting for an answer, I began to edit it myself, a minute later all my works were deleted, apparently the Ministry of Defense for the Americans is not an authoritative source. The fact is that in the article before that there was a figure of 160 thousand dead with an intelligent source. And now 90 thousand. Here they are the miracles of the American army, every year there are fewer and fewer losses. In a year, it will generally turn out that all the losses of the United States in the war with Japan are one cut soldier, lol. [[User:Lone Ranger1999|Lone Ranger1999]] ([[User talk:Lone Ranger1999|talk]]) 17:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::The issue is not that the sources are not authoritative, it's that no one knows what you are trying to do; you're going about it in a confusing manner that makes it hard to understand your issues with the article as it is currently laid out. Use the article talk page to propose the changes you wish to make, being very clear and deliberate about what text you wish to write, what you intend to replace, what sources justify the changes, etc. If you've been making your changes to the article in the way you've been asking questions here, it is entirely understandable why others cannot figure out what you are trying to do. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
:::::The DOD report (not MOD; correct terminology will help persuade other editors that you are in fact interpreting sources appropriately) you linked on US Army casualties notes on pp. 1-2 the issues with fully characterizing the true disposition of non-battle deaths; further, the definition of "non-battle deaths" provided on p.4 presents two different scopes of the term, depending on where in the document you are looking. That sort of acknowledged incomplete effort and potential for confusion may be the reason that it's not (or is no longer) being used as a significant source in the article. There's certainly plenty there to call into question whether or not the geographic assignments of non-battle deaths have significant merit. — [[User talk:Lomn|Lomn]] 18:09, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
|