Talk:3rd Division (Vietnam)
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Mztourist in topic Non-Neutral Sources and Phrasing
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 3rd Division (Vietnam) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Non-Neutral Sources and Phrasing
editSimilar to the 2nd Division (Vietnam) article, sources used for this page should not be regarded as neutral, as its reliant on sources which is disclaimed as Official US Military History. The sources used are again from MACV Operation Reports which are notoriously unreliable or accurate in description of events, facts and figures, per Vietnam War body count controversy. There is no attempt to prove factually the matters or events rather than just reporting it. Either the article should disclaim outrightly when this is used or cite better third-party sources. 45.62.243.176 (talk) 06:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- If you believe that then you need to provide WP:RS that offers alternative views rather than just tagging and criticizing the multiple WP:RS that are provided. Mztourist (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about alternative views. But its clear that using a source that literally calls itself Official History, and writes for the opposing side in a conflict is not a clear or objective source. Don't remove the tag unless you find third party accounts or some other indicator, or just indicate it in the article which sources says which. 45.62.243.176 (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes its obvious you don't care about alternative views and can't provide any constructive input based on WP:RS. Your whole MO is simply criticize sources that contradict your POV. In any event: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#06 November 2018 Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- What are you even rambling about? 45.62.243.176 (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It must be so frustrating for you being indefinitely blocked...Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not blocked? I don't get why you are taking things so personally, its not obviously good for your mental or physical health.45.62.243.176 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- You can respond to the SPI. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not blocked? I don't get why you are taking things so personally, its not obviously good for your mental or physical health.45.62.243.176 (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- It must be so frustrating for you being indefinitely blocked...Mztourist (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- What are you even rambling about? 45.62.243.176 (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yes its obvious you don't care about alternative views and can't provide any constructive input based on WP:RS. Your whole MO is simply criticize sources that contradict your POV. In any event: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A bicyclette#06 November 2018 Mztourist (talk) 06:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- I don't care about alternative views. But its clear that using a source that literally calls itself Official History, and writes for the opposing side in a conflict is not a clear or objective source. Don't remove the tag unless you find third party accounts or some other indicator, or just indicate it in the article which sources says which. 45.62.243.176 (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
And of course 45.62.243.176 was blocked as a sock/proxy. Mztourist (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)